SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ.
Secretary-Registrar, Technopark – Appellant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
W.A. No. 757 of 2024
Decided On : 10-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : K.V. Rashmi, Anil Thomas.
For the Respondents: Suman Chakravarthy, K.R. Deepa.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the need for a specific legal provision empowering tax exemption and allows the appellant to pursue the appellate remedy against the arrear demand notices.

Headnote:

Property Tax - Industrial Area - Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993, Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 - Article 243Q(1) of the Constitution of India

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Secretary-Registrar of 'Technopark', challenged arrear demand notices for property tax issued by the Municipal Corporation, claiming exemption as an 'industrial area' under the Acts of 1993 and 1999.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's status as an 'industrial area' did not exempt it from property tax, as the relevant statutes did not provide for such exemption. The court allowed the appellant to exercise the appellate remedy against the arrear demand notices.

Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's claim for exemption from property tax based on its status as an 'industrial area' and the authority of the Municipal Corporation to levy property tax.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's notification as an 'industrial area' did not imply exemption from property tax, as no specific legal provision empowered such exemption. The court also emphasized the need for a clear legal basis for tax exemption and allowed the appellant to pursue the appellate remedy.

Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge, allowing the appellant to exercise the appellate remedy against the arrear demand notices, with the limitation period for appeal condoned.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant who was the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 33694 of 2022 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2023 of the learned Single Judge.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as follows:

    Appellant is the Secretary-Registrar of ‘Technopark’ which is an entity fully owned by the Government of Kerala and registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literacy, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. It is a promotional agency that creates infrastructure for IT/ITES Companies. The 1st respondent Municipal Corporation had issued Ext.P4 letter dated 22.06.2022 to the appellant enclosing arrear demand notices demanding payment of arrears of property tax with respect to the buildings of the appellant for the period 2016 to 2022. The total amount due as per Ext.P4 letter was Rs. 2,93,83,266/-. Appellant though initially paid some amounts due towards property tax, later desisted from making further payments on the premise that the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation has no authority or competence to collect property tax from the appellant since the appellant has been notified as an ‘industrial area’ under two statutes, viz. the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993 and the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1993’ and ‘the Act of 1999’ respectively). Relying on its said status as an ‘industrial area’ appellant preferred Exts.P5, P6 and P7 representations before 1st and 2nd respondents inter-alia seeking a recall of the arrear demand notices. Inspite of the receipt of the said representations, the respondents did not act upon the same. Appellant apprehends that the 1st respondent may initiate coercive steps to realise the amounts claimed vide Ext.P4 letter and the arrear demand notices annexed thereto. Hence the Writ Petition was filed seeking the following prayers:

“(i) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 arrear demand notices and to quash the same along with Ext.P4 considering the same as illegal, arbitrary and claimed without authority.

(ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P5 to Ext.P7 and report the orders passed, before this Hon’ble Court, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, that too within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 1 to refund the property tax amounts already collected by them to the petitioner as is claimed in Exts.P5 to P7 representation, as the said amounts are collected without any authority.

(iv) Declare that no local self Government laws are applicable to such areas declared as ‘industrial areas’ as is seen from Exts.P1 to P3, which is exempted under Article 243Q(1) proviso of the Constitution of India.

(v) To grant such other reliefs sought from time to time including the cost of this proceeding.

(vi) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 4th respondent (impleaded through I.A. No. 1 of 2023) to declare the Technopark Industrial Area as Industrial Township as envisaged in Article 243 Q(1) proviso.

(vii) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 4th respondent (impleaded through I.A. No. 1 of 2023) to constitute an ‘Authority’ for Technopark Industrial Area as contemplated in Sec. 14 and 15 of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Board and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 as expeditiously as possible.

(viii) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to strictly comply with the procedures established in the Rule 12 of Kerala Municipality (Property tax, Service Cess and Surcharge

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top