A roofing construction protecting units does not attract tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act.

JUDGMENT

A commercial building constructed by the petitioner was originally assessed under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act , 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), on a plinth area of 17,177.97 square metres. Subsequently, re- assessment proceedings were taken under the provisions of Section 5 (4) of the Act, with reference to the additional construction stated to have been carried out by the petitioner to a small extent of 118.81 square metres. On the basis of the proceedings so initiated by the order at Ext.P3, a substantial amount in excess of Rs.30 lakhs is demanded from the petitioner by applying the provisions of (4) of the Act. It is seeking to challenge the afore assessment that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri.Abdul Raoof Pallipath, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Alan Priyadarshi Dev, learned Government Pleader.

3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is to the effect that the additional construction of 118.81 square meters, noticed by the assessing authority, actually represents a covering made on the terrace of the building, so as to safeguard the air conditioning unit (outdoor units). Photographs of the afore construction are also produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P5. A perusal of the photographs shows that the construction carried out is only as a covering for the outdoor units and it is not in the nature of a room, which is constructed on the terrace. This Court also notices that the recommendation made by the Tahsildar, Kannur, at Ext.P9, with specific reference to the ground realities that the assessment requires to be reconsidered, and hence seeking appropriate directions from the Government in that regard.

4. This Court also notices the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Xavier J. Ponnezhath v. State of Kerala [2025 (3) KHC 91] , wherein it has been found that a mere roofing/truss work constructed over the terrace of the building to protect the same from the harmful effects of the weather, would not be taken into account for the purpose of levy of tax under the provisions of the Act.

5. With reference to the contents of Ext.P9 as well as the principles laid down by this Court in the afore judgment, I am of the opinion that the completion of assessment against the petitioner cannot be sustained.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P3. The Tahsildar, Kannur, is directed to reconsider the matter with specific reference to the contents of the report at Ext.P9 as well as the principles laid down by this Court in Xavier J. Ponnezhath v. State of Kerala [2025 (3) KHC 91], after granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Fresh orders to be passed as above, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-