IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32028 of 2011(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- MANUEL HATCHERY AND BREEDING FARM, KANAKKANKALAM, KOZHIPARA P.O., PALAKKAD, RPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRESS SMT. GIJI MANUEL. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 101. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE, PIN-678 557. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32028 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DTD.26.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, VADAKARAPATHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DTD.4.9.2008. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.21.8.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.12.11.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.28.12.2009. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.21.1.2010 IN WPC NO.1535/2010. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.21.5.2010. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD.2.7.2010. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SENDING EXHIBIT-P10. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.9.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : \\TRUE COPY\\ PA TO JUDGE JM S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 32028 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner runs a SSI unit conducting the business of a hatchery and a breeding farm of Japanese quails. For that purpose, he has constructed buildings. Those buildings have been assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioner claimed exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that it is an industry and, therefore, would come within the purview of Section 3(1) (b) of the Act. The same has been rejected. The petitioner filed W.P. (C).No.1535/2010, in which, the matter was directed to be referred to the Government for consideration of the question of exemption under Section 3(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Government considered the petitioner's claim for exemption and passed Ext.P11 order holding that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption since the petitioner's buildings do not house either a factory or a workshop, which alone are eligible for exemption under the Act. The Government relied on the decision of this Court in Muhammed Haneefa v. District Collector, 2009 (1) KLT 719. The petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order and seeks the following reliefs; “i. To call for the records connected with the case leading to Ext.P6, P7 and P11 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii. To declare that the building assessed by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P6 order is entitled to get exemption from payment of building tax as per Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax w.p.c.32028/11 - : 2 :- Act, 1975.” According to the petitioner, the decision in Muhammed Haneefa's case (supra) is not applicable insofar as it relates to a farm and not a hatchery. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In the decision referred to above, this Court has categorically held that exemption is available only for factories and workshops and not for other buildings. In fact, therein this Court has suggested amendments to the Section keeping in mind the purpose for which the Section has been enacted. But it has also been stated in that judgment that until the Section is amended, no exemption can be claimed unless the building houses a factory or a workshop. The petitioner has no case that the building houses either a factory or a workshop. That being so, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the exemption claimed for. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge