High Court of KeralaWP(C)/8940/2015disposed of

Ahammed Sherif v. The State Of Kerala

2015-08-04Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/13TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 8940 of 2015 (N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- AHAMMED SHERIF, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMAD HAJI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALABAR VENEERS (P) LTD, KUNIYA, KAPPNAKAL, PERIYA PO, KASARAGOD.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S):

-------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

2. THE THASILDAR, HOSDURG, KASARAGODE DISTRICT 671315.

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

PERIYA 671316, KASARAGOD.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 8940 of 2015 (N) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:

PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY DATED 15.05.2014 P2:

PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT DATED 17.03.2013 P3:

PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXTENSION OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE 22.12.2014 P4:

PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2014 REJECTING THE PETITIONERS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION P5:

TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 04.03.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

-------------------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 8940 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner claiming exemption under the Building Tax Act had approached the Government. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the Government rejecting petitioner's claim. 2.

The petitioner's case is that, the building in question is a factory building wherein petitioner runs a plywood industry. Therefore the building is entitled for exemption in terms of Section 3(1)(b) of the Building Tax Act.

The application was rejected stating the reason that, the petitioner failed to produce any documents to show that it is being used as a factory. Particularly, it has been pointed out that the petitioner failed to produce licence issued by the Factories and Boilers Department. It is also noted that the factory is not following the provisions of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. 4.

Petitioner has produced Exts.P1 to P3 before this Court to substantiate his claim that the building in question is a factory. It is apparent that the petitioner has not produced these documents before the Government.

WP(c). No.8940 of 2015 5.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P4 shall be reconsidered. Petitioner shall produce all the documents relied by him including Exts.P1 to P3 and also furnish details to show that the factory is following the provisions of Section 2(m) of Factories Act. It shall be done, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter after hearing the petitioner appropriate decision shall be taken within a further period of two months.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.