Linta Purayidathil Jose vs. The State Of Kerala
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 18417 OF 2021 PETITIONER: LINTA PURAYIDATHIL JOSE, AGED 38 YEARS XIII/257, POPEES BUILDING, PATHIRIYAL, POONTHOTTAM, THIRUVALI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 123, (PROPRIETOR, AIBEL APPARELS). BY ADV E.C.AHAMED FAZIL RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, NEAR MINI-CIVIL STATION, PATTAMBI ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA. 3 THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR, TALUK OFFICE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTICT-679 329 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVALLI, THIRUVALLI VILLAGE OFFICE, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 348 DR.THUSHARA JAMES-SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18417 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P(C) No.18417 of 2021 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 assessment order issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act. According to the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as petitioner was never heard nor is any application of mind reflected in the order.
The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the petitioner was in fact heard on 25.10.2018 and was even directed to produce documents to justify his claim that the building is used as a factory to get the benefit of exemption.
I have heard Adv.E.C.Ahamed Fazil, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.Dr.Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader.
WP(C) NO. 18417 OF 2021 3
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances arising in the case as well as the submission made as above, I am of the view that the order impugned, though appealable, does not reflect any hearing having been conducted by the 3rd respondent. The order does not reflect even the alleged opportunity given to the petitioner to produce the required documents. The order is seen to be issued in a mechanical manner without any application of mind and, hence, the same is liable to the set aside.
Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P3 and direct the 3 rd respondent to give notice of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after considering the objections and the documents that may be produced by the petitioner in support of his alleged claim. Needless to mention, the proceedings contemplated under law when a claim for exemption is raised shall also be complied with,
WP(C) NO. 18417 OF 2021 4 if such claim is put forth.
The proceedings directed as above, shall be completed with an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall treat this judgment as sufficient notice to appear before the 3rd respondent on 05.10.2021. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/18/09//2021
WP(C) NO. 18417 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18417/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1OF GST REGISTRATION OF PETITIONER ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Exhibit P2OF LISCENSE NO. 118/2021-2021/B1/938 DATED 01.04.2021 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM THIRUVALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH. Exhibit P3OF ASSESSMENT ORDER CUM DEMAND NOTICE NO. C4/16031/2018 03.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NILP.A.TO JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.