IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2504 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANJILATH KUNJI PATHU,W/O. C.H.ABDULLA, NAYIKKARA VALAPPIL, CHITHARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG, CHITHARI P.O. 2. M/S. INDUS MOTOR CO.LTD., OPPOSITE SOUTH GATE OF SHIP YARD, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, SHRI M.R.SOORAJ. BY ADV. MR. P.K.ABOOBACKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE THAHSILDAR, HOSDURG THALUK, THALUK OFFICE KANHANGAD P.O. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHITHARI VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHITHARI P.O. MR. BOJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.2504 of 2010-K ---------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this Writ Petition is whether the dispute raised by the petitioners that the building in question is to be exempted from building tax, as provided under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975 is liable to be referred by the first respondent for proper decision to be taken by the Government as provided under Section 3(2) of the Act or not. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner had let out the property in question to the second petitioner for conducting a 'workshop' and accordingly the second petitioner constructed a shed and is using the same as a workshop, which is stated as within the purview of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. The case of the petitioners is that the first respondent has passed the impugned order and the demand notices without any regard to Ext.P3 statement of objections filed by the first petitioner, which hence are subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. Placing W.P(C) No.2504 of 2010-K 2 reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Victory Paper and Boards (India) Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer (2000(2) ILR 592), the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue is squarely covered and that once the dispute is raised as to the right to get exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the statute there is no other option to the Assessing Authority, but to refer the same for proper decision by the Government, who is competent authority under Section 3(2). The learned counsel also placed for consideration of this Court, a similar verdict passed by this Court on 1.12.2009 in W.P(C) No.32206 of 2009, whereby the concerned respondent was directed to have the matter considered as specified. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with specific reference to the contents of the statement, that each and every dispute is not liable to be referred and that the case in hand does not come within the purview of referable dispute. However, whether the building in question is liable to be exempted or not is a matter to be considered by the Government by virtue of the scheme of the statute and once the dispute is raised before the assessing authority, it is not for the assessing authority to adjudicate upon the issue in view of the binding judicial precedents. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court directs the first W.P(C) No.2504 of 2010-K 3 respondent to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for proper decision to the Government represented by the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Government shall consider the matter and finalise the proceedings in accordance with law, of course giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months thereafter. 5. The Government represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, stands suo motu implead as additional third respondent and the learned Government Pleader has entered appearance on behalf of the said respondent as well. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition along with a copy of the judgment before the additional third respondent. In view of the direction given as above, Ext.P4 shall not be implemented for the time being and will be subject to further orders to be passed by the additional third respondent as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge