VICTORY SOAPS AND COSMETIC PVT. LTD. KINFRA PARK v. THE SECRETARY
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Judgment
K. M. JOSEPH, J.--------------------------------------W.P.C. NO. 25718 OF 2008 J--------------------------------------Dated this the 2nd September, 2008JUDGMENTThe Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "i) Declare that petitioner company's factoryset up in the Industrial Park, Plot No.16, in SurveyNo.266/3 Part in KINFRA industrial area isexempted from levying Building Tax by the Municipality.ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction directingrespondents 1 and 2 not to proceed with the levyingof building tax on petitioner's building/shed situatedin No.Plot No.16, in Survey No.266/3 part inKINFRA industrial area.iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rdrespondent to adjudicate the appeal/review petitionfiled by the petitioner as per Ext.P9 within a timeframe as stipulated by this Court pending disposal ofthe Writ Petition.
"2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner Company has entered into an agreement with WPC. 25718/08 J2the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation(KINFRA) for setting up a soap and cosmetic manufacturingunit. Ext.P1 is the Certificate of Incorporation. Petitioner putup a building for running the industrial unit. Ext.P3 which is theacknowledgment, shows that the petitioner has got clearance forsetting up the unit from the Government of Kerala for Micro, Small or Medium Enterprises. Petitioner Company received anotice proposing to assess the petitioner to building tax (Ext.P5).The Chairman was present, it is stated, and he explained that the Company may not be assessed to building tax, as the industrialarea shall be exempted from obtaining building permit. Petitioner also referred, it is stated, to Section 3 of the KeralaBuilding Tax Act. The said communication is produced as Ext.P6 dated 15.1.2008.
It is without considering the same thatby Ext.P7 petitioner has been assessed. Petitioner againsubmitted Ext.P8 reply and the petitioner has also preferred an Appeal purporting to be under Section 11/13 of the BuildingTax Act before the District Collector. WPC. 25718/08 J33. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand also the learned Government Pleader. Learned GovernmentPleader was directed to get instructions in the matter. He pointsout that before the assessment was made, the petitioner hasindeed filed Ext.P6 dated 15.1.2008 and he further submits thatit appears that, a doubt came to be entertained as to whether thepetitioner Company as a small scale unit qualifies as a factoryand since it does not employ ten workers under the FactoriesAct. He further submits that the assessment came to be passedat any rate, without referring the matter to the Government. But, he further submits that in respect of the buildings in theindustrial area including the petitioner has now been referred bythe assessing authority.
Operative part
The assessing authority becomes functusofficio after the order is passed. In the case of the petitioner, ifthe Tahsildar had a doubt, it was his bounden duty to refer thematter to the Government and it could not have passed an orderof assessment. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is quashed and there willbe a direction to the second respondent to refer the matter WPC. 25718/08 J4relating to the petitioner to the Government under Section 3(3)within a period of two weeks of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, and the Government of Kerala will consider the sameand take a decision thereon in accordance with law, afteraffording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within aperiod of two months from the date of receipt of the referencefrom the second respondent. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGEkbk.//True Copy//PS to Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
KeralaBuilding Tax Act — s. 3.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 02 Sep 2008. The bench was K M JOSEPH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.