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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
BOBAN JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7919 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.HARIKUMAR, SMT.SANDRA SUNNY, SHRI.ARUN KUMAR M.A
For the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.HARIKUMAR, SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SRI SUNIL NATH

Applicability of cess rate linked to the year of construction established.

Headnote:The court examined the liability of the petitioner concerning the Construction Workers Welfare Cess. The petitioner contended that the applicable cess rate should correspond to the year of construction, 2000, as established by evidence. The court upheld the petitioner's argument directing a re-evaluation based on the correct rate applicable for that year. The petition was allowed, and the impugned notices set aside.

Table of Content
1. determining liability for cess according to the year of construction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's directive for re-evaluation of cess liability. (Para 4)

J U D G M E N T

The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is with regard to the liability of the petitioner, who constructed a residential building during the years 2000–01, for the Construction Workers Welfare Cess.

2. I have heard Sri.C. Harikumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader, and Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Board.

3. The impugned demand has been raised against the petitioner, as evidenced by Exts. P1 and P2, by applying the rate that was prevalent at the relevant point of time (2001). The contention raised by the petitioner is that, since the building in question was constructed in the year 2000, only the rate prevalent during the year 2000 is liable to be applied. The rate applicable during the year 2000 is evident from Ext. R1(e). The fact that the building in question was constructed in the year 2000 is also clear from a perusal of Ext. P6 certificate issued by the local authority.

4. When that be so, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's liability can only be with reference to the rate of cess that was applicable during the year 2000.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand allowed directing the respondents to re-work the liability of the petitioner with reference to the rate of cess that was applicable during the year 2000. So as to facilitate the above, the impugned proceedings at Ext.P1 and P2 would stand set aside.

Sd/-

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