IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that premises engaged in pumping oil qualify as a factory under the Factories Act, thus entitling them to exemption from building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act.

JUDGMENT :

Dated this the 10th day of March, 2025 The short question that arises for consideration in the Writ Petition is whether the petitioner’s premises could be termed a ‘factory,’ entitling it to claim exemption from payment of building tax that would otherwise be payable under the Kerala Building Tax Act , 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1975”).

2. Petitioner is an incorporated entity engaged in the business of storing, pumping and transporting petroleum Class B and edible oils. Petitioner has for the said purpose put up at Thoppumpady Village, 12 tanks for storing Petroleum Class B each having a capacity of 17380 KL and 9 vegetable oil tanks for storing edible oils, each having a capacity of 292215 KL. Permission in the said respect had been granted to the petitioner under Section 41 A of the Factories Act , 1948 by the Labour and Rehabilitation Department of Government of Kerala as revealed by Ext.P1. Petitioner had also been granted Ext.P2 licence by the Department of Factories and Boilers, Government of Kerala. Ext.P3 licence to import and store petroleum in the facility put up has also been secured by the petitioner from the Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives. The Corporation of Cochin had issued Ext.P4 Occupancy certificate to the petitioner with respect to the buildings forming part of the facility situated at Thoppumpady Village. While so, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner by the 1^st respondent Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Fort Kochi in connection with the proposed assessment under the Act of 1975. Petitioner issued Ext.P6 reply inter alia pointing out that the relevant building is registered under the Factories Act and is principally used as a Factory and hence no part of the said building can be assessed to tax as factories have been exempted from the purview of the Act of 1975. The documents sought in Ext.P5 was also produced before the 1^st respondent. Nevertheless, the building of the petitioner was assessed to one-time tax and hence Ext.P7 representation was preferred reiterating that the factory building of the petitioner cannot be exigible to tax under the Act of 1975. The petitioner was later afforded a hearing by the 2^nd respondent and was called upon vide Ext.P8 to produce the muster roll of the employees for the past 6 months for satisfying itself regarding the number of employees employed in the petitioner's premises. The same was duly complied with as revealed by Ext.P9. The petitioner was also called upon vide Ext.P10 to submit an affidavit stating the details of permanent employees and the same was complied with vide Ext.P11. Thereafter to the surprise of the petitioner, Ext.P12 demand notice was issued by the 1^st respondent demanding payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards building tax along with cess of Rs.3,600/- in lumpsum or 4 installments. Petitioner issued Ext.P13 letter inter alia pointing out that they had not been intimated regarding the outcome of the representation made before the 2^nd respondent or regarding order, if any, passed thereupon. It is only then that the petitioner was issued with a copy of Ext.P14 order issued by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the exemption sought by the petitioner under the Act of 1975. This Writ Petition is thus filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) to call for the records leading up to Exhibit P5 notice issued by the 1st respondent, Exhibit P12 demand notice issued by the 1st respondent and Ext.P14 order passed by the 2nd respondent, and to quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

(ii) declare that the premises of the petitioner Near Customs House, BTP Road, Willingdon Island, Cochin-682009 is a factory under the Factories Act , and hence entitled for exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act ;

(iii) grant such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justic