IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 36535 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SEBASTIAN MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 70,PINNAKKATTUNI HOUSE, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER, BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTUCTION,WORKERS WELFARE CASES ACT O/O. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE,KOTTAYAM. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CASES ACT, 1996). 3. THE STATE OFKERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ KUNJACHAN, FOR R2&R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36535 of 2008(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.2.4.2008 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 6.5.2008 EXT.P4 : TRUE COY OF HE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.23.6.2008 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.28.8.2008 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 36535 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the assessment of the petitioner's building under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. The petitioner was assessed to a tax of Rs.17,047/- estimating the value of construction of the building at Rs. 1704711/- by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner challenged it in appeal on two grounds viz., that the assessment was done without any inspection and also on the ground that the petitioner had not expended any amounts exceeding Rs.10 lakhs; making the petitioner assessable under the Cess Act. The petitioner specifically contended before the appellate authority that he had expended only an amount of Rs. 6,86,000/- for the construction of the building. The appellate authority after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner felt that the nature of construction has not been looked into by the Assessing Officer and hence remanded the issue by Ext.P2, directing the assessment to be de novo considered after conducting a spot inspection. WPC.36535/2008 : 2 : 2. With notice to the petitioner the Assessing Officer, conducted spot inspection of the building and after measuring the plinth area as also examining the nature of the construction estimated the cost of the building as per the norms prescribed by the Labour Commissioner issued under the Cess Act and arrived at an amount of Rs.14,42,349/- as the cost of construction. The Cess under the Cess Act was also levied at the rate of 1% being Rs. 14,423/-. Ext.P3 assessment order passed was again challenged by the petitioner in appeal which resulted in Ext.P6 order, which is challenged by the petitioner in the above writ petition. 3. The challenge of the petitioner on the first round of appeal before the appellate authority was mainly regarding the absence of inspection of the premises. Even in the said appeal but for the assertion of the petitioner that he had expended only Rs.6,86,000/-, the petitioner had produced absolutely no materials to substantiate the contention. In any event, the first appellate authority having remanded the matter directed the Assessing Officer to de novo consider the entire issue after spot inspection. It is revealed by Ext.P3 that WPC.36535/2008 : 3 : the Assessing Officer had with notice to the petitioner conducted spot inspection and even at the stage of inspection the petitioner has not produced any documents or materials to substantiate the contention that the construction cost was below the assessable limit in the Cess Act. Even in the appeal the petitioner rested contend with his more assertion and no material was produced to substantiate the claim. 4. In the circumstances, I find that the Assessing Officer was correct in estimating the value of the building as per norms prescribed under the Cess Act for making an assessment under the Act. The appellate authority has also considered the issue in detail and found the assessment to be proper and in accordance with the Cess Act. In the circumstances, I am afraid that the petitioner cannot successfully challenge Ext.P6 order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since both the fact finding authorities have categorically on the basis of inspection and materials available entered a finding as to the cost of construction of the building. The Writ petition hence is without any merit, and Ext.P6 order confirming Ext.P3 calls WPC.36535/2008 : 4 : for no interference and the writ petition is dismissed without any cost. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //True Copy// P.A to Judge