Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE3D DAY OF OCTOBER201311TH ASWINA, 1935 WA.No. 798 of 2008 ( ) IN WP(C).9726/2007 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 9726/2007 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED2106-2007 APPELLANT(S): ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER BOBBY JOHN PULIKKAPARAMBIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. ANIL K.MENON, SHREYAS, KAPPALANDIMUKKU, KOCHI-682002.
2. K.J.LEENUS, KATTIKAT HOUSE, CHERIAKADAVUKARA, KANNAMALY P.O., KOCHI-682008.
3. DAVIS GEORGE, PEARLY SHELL, KUNNUMPURAM, FORT KOCHI P.O., KOCHI-682001. R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0310-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 798 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd October, 2013 JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J.
Respondent State is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondents-petitioners challenging Exhibit P9 assessment made by the assessing officer under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 imposing on them an amount of 2,80,200/- as building tax. According to the petitioners, the assessing officer had treated the building as a single unit. It is a commercial-cum-residential complex containing 59 apartments. The commercial block was separately assessed. As far as 59 apartments are concerned, it was assessed as a single unit. For the commercial portion, the assessment was made as 3,00,600/- and for the residential portion the assessment was 2,80,200/-.
2. In the Writ Petition we are concerned only regarding the assessment made in respect of the residential portion. The learned Single Judge, having regard to the factual issues involved WA.798/08 2 in the Writ Petition, found that there is an agreement between the flat owners and the builder and though the agreement is not registered, the same could be taken into consideration and directed the assessing officer to make a fresh assessment on each and every flat owner depending on the plinth area treating each flat as separate one and revised assessment was directed to be completed within a period of three months.
3. Learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant submits that no material had been produced by the assessees in order to prove that the cost of the construction was met by such apartment owners jointly in terms of Section 2(e) read with Explanation-2 of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Apparently, the assessees have produced the agreement with the individual apartment owners. The only reason pointed out by the assessing officer is that the agreement is not registered. It is a settled position of law that an agreement for sale or purchase of land or building need not be compulsorily registered. If the assessees have entered into separate agreements with buyers to purchase the apartments on its completion, and has advanced amounts, there is no reason why the benefit should not be extended to the independent flat owners in terms of Explanation-2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. WA.798/08 3 4. We do not think that the learned Single Judge had committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment. We find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vgs4.10