Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAMMED KHANI versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MOHAMMED KHANI v. THE STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 3691 of 2007(M) [2007] RD-KL 16198 (21 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 3691 of 2007(M)

1. MOHAMMED KHANI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE TAHASILDAR (ASSESSING AUTHORITY

For Petitioner :SRI.P.NARAYANAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :21/08/2007

O R D E R

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

WP(C) No. 3691 of 2007

Dated, this the 21st day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is challenging Exts.P6 to P9 orders of assessments and demand of building tax in respect of a building consisting of six apartments. Even though petitioner contended that building consists of separate apartments, learned Government Pleader submitted that building consists of partly commercial area and partly residential area. Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Building Tax Act provides for separate assessment for separate apartments, whether it is used for commercial or residential purposes. In the first place, Tahsildar has to ascertain by conducting an inspection as to whether building comprised is of separate apartments and if commercial area is separate, it can be assessed at the applicable rate to it and residential area has to be subject to tax at the rate applicable to it. Since orders are issued without considering the documents, which is said to be available with the petitioner, I dispose of the writ petition granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce the agreement, deeds and documents to substantiate his case before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent WP(C) No. 3691/2007 will conduct inspection of the building to find out the nature of construction before proceeding with the assessment. Even if building is constructed by the petitioner and later assigned separately, building tax should not be assessed together but should be assessed in petitioner's name, if he is the owner at the time of completion of construction of the building. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. As and when fresh orders are passed, he will recall the earlier order. Tax already paid will be adjusted based on revised demand and if no tax is to be paid, the amount paid will be refunded to the petitioner without delay. This writ petition is disposed of as above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)

jg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.