Statutory authorities must refer exemption claims to the Government if raised during assessments under the Kerala Building Tax Act, ensuring compliance with mandatory procedural obligations.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, is the owner of a building used for running a dealership in Toyota vehicles. According to the petitioner, the said building is used for accommodating a showroom, workshop and a service center. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition relates to the exemption for the building from the payment of building tax as contemplated under Section 3 (1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act , 1975.

2. The petitioner was subjected to an assessment as per Ext.P1 order by the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar, imposing a tax liability of Rs.31,52,700/-. The petitioner submitted an application as evidenced by Ext.P2, seeking exemption under Section 3 (1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act , 1975, before the Government. The petitioner simultaneously challenged the assessment order by approaching this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.9033/2021 which resulted in Ext.P5 order, in which, the petitioner was relegated to invoke the statutory remedy of appeal. Accordingly, an appeal was submitted before the 3^rd respondent and as per Ext.P6, the said application was rejected, mainly on the ground that, the plinth area of the building used for showroom, is higher than the area used for the workshop and therefore the principal use of the building cannot be treated as the one for factory or workshop. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption.

3. A revision petition was filed challenging Ext.P6 order before the 2^nd respondent herein as evidenced by Ext.P7. The said revision petition was disposed of as per Ext.P9, by holding that, the question of exemption can be considered only by the Government and therefore, the contentions of the petitioner regarding exemption cannot be entertained by the said authority.

It was in these circumstances this writ petition is submitted.

4. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents disputing the averments contained in the writ petition and also opposing the reliefs.

5. I have heard, Dr.K.P Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the orders impugned in this case are liable to be interfered with. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as far as the question of exemption under Section 3 (1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act is concerned, as rightly observed by the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P9 order, the same could have been considered by the Government only. According to the petitioner, it had already moved the Government, as evidenced by Ext.P2, and pending consideration of the said application, it was not proper for the respondents to assess the petitioner under the provisions of the Building Tax Act, by denying the exemption.

7. After carefully going through the documents produced before this Court and hearing the contentions raised from both sides, I find merits in the said contentions. As per Section 3 (2) of the Building Tax Act, it is mandatory for the statutory authorities to refer the question of exemption to the Government, and it is for the Government to take a decision on the said question, after giving the interested parties, an opportunity to present their case.

Therefore, going by the language used in Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 , it is evident that, once the question of exemption is raised before the statutory authorities during the process of assessment or otherwise, it is their obligation to refer the matter to the Government without taking any decision on it. In this case, the original authorities ha