IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31228 of 2004(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, S/O.BEERAN HAJI, KALPAKANCHERRY AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR - (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 4 (2) OF KERALA, BUILDING TAX ACT). 3. THE THAHASILDAR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.805/01. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1125/03/H. P3: TRUE COPY OF REVISION REJECTED ORDER DT.21.7.04. P4: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION BEFORE R3 DT.22.11.2002. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.R. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.31228 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging building tax assessment in respect of a shed constructed by the petitioner where he carries on poultry farming. The petitioner's case is that the poultry shed does not fall within the meaning of "building" defined under Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter called "the Act"). I heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 2. Building as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act covers any structure, whether made of masonry, bricks, wood, metal or other material, but does not include any portable shelter or any shed constructed particularly of mud, bamboo, leaves, grass or thatch. Even though poultry farming can be done in portable shelter or in any shed constructed with mud, bamboo, grass etc., Government Pleader on instruction submitted that the building constructed by the petitioner is a pucca structure with cement flooring and tile roof. Since the structure constructed by the petitioner does not fall within the exempted categories provided in the definition clause, it is a building assessable under the Act, if not exempted under Section 3. 2 Therefore, the contention that the structure does not answer the description of building is rejected. 2. The next question to be considered is whether the building is entitled to exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. Buildings exempted under this clause are buildings principally used for religious, charitable or educational purpose or as factories or workshops. Neither factory nor workshop is defined under the Act. However, Government Pleader submitted that as a matter of practice, factory is understood with reference to the definition of that term contained in the Factories Act, 1948. The definition under this Act admittedly does not cover a poultry shed. Since "workshop" is not defined under the Act, necessarily it should be assigned the meaning available in common parlance. It is common knowledge that a workshop is a place where repair, fabrication etc. are carried out. A poultry farm can by no stretch of imagination be treated as a workshop. Therefore, technically the poultry shed cannot be called a factory or workshop referred to in Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Counsel for the petitioner further raised a contention that the exemption clause should be understood liberally to cover a building where a productive activity like poultry farming is going on. I find force in this contention because exemption clause is intended to exclude buildings where 3 productive activity is going on. The purpose appears to be to provide an incentive to activities which promote development including employment opportunities. Poultry farms, cattle farms, piggery etc., are probably of the type which deserve encouragement from Government through tax incentives. However, this is a matter of policy for the Government to decide. Even though counsel for the petitioner stated that reference is called for under Section 3(2) for decision by the Government, I do not think this question can be decided by the Government in a reference under Section 3(2) which is basically on interpretation of the exemption clause with reference to specific cases. As already held, petitioner's is not a case covered by any of the exemption clause, even though the activity of the petitioner is comparable to the activities in workshop and factories deserving consideration by the Government through amendment of the statute providing for exemption to poultry farmers and others engaged in live stock development, milk production etc. I earnestly feel that the matter should engage the attention of the Government for considering amendment to the statute. The W.P.(C) is dismissed with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms