IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 27859 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.MAAK PAPERS PRODUCTS, THIRUVANGAD,THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS PARTNER SULTHANA KHALID. BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27859 of 2009(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING REFERENCE NO. F 12204/04 F. 12574 OF 2004 DATED 26.03.2005. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF IMPORTER-EXPORTER CODE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DT. 30.06.2003. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF WAGES OF MAY 2005. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF WAGES OF JUNE 2006 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 27859 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 10th June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance projected in the Writ Petition is with regard to imposition of Building Tax under Section 5 and Luxury Tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act without granting the benefit of 'exemption' as provided under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was caused to be referred to the Government as per Section 3(2) of the Act and after considering the materials, the Government passed Ext.P5 order declining the benefit of 'exemption', turning down the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to get exemption being a 'factory', for the reason that the records produced revealed that the petitioner was only having less than 10 workers, which by itself would take the petitioner outside the definition of the term W.P.(C) No. 27859 OF 2009 2 'Factory' as defined under Section 2(m) of the Act, which contemplates engagement of minimum number of 10 workers. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the factual position as reflected in Ext. P5 that the petitioner was having only less than 10 workers at that point of time, is conceded, it is stated that the petitioner is now engaging more that 10 workers and that the petitioner is very much entitled to get the benefit of 'exemption' with regard to the liability to pay 'Luxury tax' under Section 5A, in respect of subsequent years. It is also contended that, unlike the case of 'Building tax' under Section 5, the liability to pay 'Luxury Tax' under Section 5A is a recurring one and that the petitioner is entitled to challenge the proceedings on every fresh cause of action, in respect of the subsequent years. 3. In the above circumstance, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate directions may be given to the second respondent to consider the question with regard to payment of 'Luxury tax' under Section 5A and to take final decision in respect of subsequent cause of action. W.P.(C) No. 27859 OF 2009 3 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the liability of the petitioner towards 'Luxury Tax' under Section 5A, in respect of the subsequent cause of action and pass appropriate orders in the light of relevant pleadings and evidence produced by the petitioner. The proceedings, as above, shall be finalised in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that the liability, if any, discharged by the petitioner in respect of previous years will not be refunded, if the case projected by the petitioner is found to be true and acceptable. 6. Taking note of the persuasive submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, to enable him to clear the liability in respect of the existing arrears in a phased manner, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability by way of 'three' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 30.06.2010; to be followed by similar installments to be W.P.(C) No. 27859 OF 2009 4 effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is also made clear that, if any default is made in clearing the arrears as above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps to realise the entire amount in a lump. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk