IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 36430 of 2005(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P. PRAKASH KUMARAN, MATHAS, NARAYANA NAGAR, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASST. LABOUR OFFICER GR.I., ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER BUILDING & OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS ACT, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, BUILDING & OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY, VADAKARA MUNICIPALITY, VADAKARA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 36430/2005. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DT. 30-9-1991. EXT.P2 RENEWAL PERMIT. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 22-11-1995. EXT.P4 NOTICE DT. 2-9-2000. EXT.P5 RETURN DT. 12-9-2000. EXT.P6 NOTICE DT. 24-12-2002. EXT.P7 DEMAND DRAFT DT. 11-1-2003. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 1-4-2003. EXT.P9 REPLY DT. 10-4-2003. EXT.P10 ORDER DT. 14-6-2005. EXT.P11 NOTICE DT. 9-8-2005. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 36430 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Exts. P8, P10 and P11 assessment orders and penalty order by which the petitioner has been assessed to cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act. The petitioner's contention is that the Act came into force only on 1-3-1996 and since the petitioner's building has been constructed prior to that date, the Act is not applicable to the petitioner's building. 2. Learned Government Pleader points out that in the Act itself, it is stated that the Act would be deemed to have come into force with effect from 3-11-1995 and therefore the contention of the petitioner is wrong. 3. The petitioner has got a further contention that the building was constructed even before 3-11-1995 as is evident from Exts. P1 and P2 building permits and Ext. P3 lease deed executed by the petitioner with the lessee on 22-11-1995. I am not inclined to rely on Exts. P1 to P3 in so far as if the petitioner has obtained permit from the Municipality, he would certainly have obtained a completion certificate and occupation certificate which would have been the best evidence to conclusively prove the date of completion of construction of the building. Ext. P3 is a self-serving document, which cannot be relied upon. That being so, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me with sufficient material that the date of construction of the building was prior to the relevant date. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.