The court established that long-pending cases may bypass usual appellate procedures, emphasizing the importance of reconsidering assessments under specific statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2026 The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order of the 1^st respondent determining the liability of the petitioner under the Building and other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Cess Act’).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, Ext.P3 Order cannot be sustained in law, for two reasons. Firstly, it is pointed out that as per Ext.P1 occupancy certificate issued by the Kannur Municipality, area of the building which is the subject matter of the assessment, is 5070 M² whereas in Ext.P3 order, the area has been taken to 5192.00 M². It is further stated that though the building was completed on 07.09.2009 as per Ext.P1, the rate of cess has been determined in terms of Ext.R1(a) Government Order dated 14.07.2017, on the basis that the building was completed after 2010.

3. The learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Building and Other Construction Worker’s Welfare Board would submit that the petitioner was given every opportunity to raise all contentions before the assessing authority. It is submitted that even after affording all opportunities, the petitioner failed to establish his case before the assessing authority. It is also submitted that the petitioner has failed to invoke the statutory appellate remedy as available to him under Section 14 of the Cess Act.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in reply, that the admitted amount of welfare cess amounting to Rs.3.5 lakhs has already been remitted by the petitioner as per the order of this Court on 05.12.2024. It is submitted that since the order clearly goes against the occupancy certificate issued by the Kannur Municipality, the petitioner may be given a chance to contest the matter once again before the assessing authority. It is submitted that this Writ Petition has been pending from the year 2024 and at this stage, the petitioner may not be relegated to avail the appellate remedy. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Welfare Board, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed to the extent that Ext.P3 order shall be reconsidered by the 1^st respondent, taking note of the Ext.P1 occupancy certificate issued by the Kannur Municipality. The contention of the learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Welfare Board that the petitioner ought to have availed the appellate remedy, does not compel me to deny relief to the petitioner as this Writ Petition has been pending before this Court from the year 2024 and it is settled law that after admission of a writ petition and where such writ petition has been pending for long, it would not be proper to relegate the parties to the appellate remedy.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P3. The 1^st respondent is directed to re- assess the liability of the petitioner under the Cess Act, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Any amount remitted by the petitioner pursuant to the orders issued by this Court shall be adjusted against the final liability determined against the petitioner. I make it clear that, I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and any observation in this judgment is only for the purpose of understanding the contentions raised by both sides. The petitioner shall submit a proper return in the Form contemplated by Section 4 of the Cess Act and shall appear before the 1^st respondent at 11 a.m. on 24.03.2026 and thereafter the matter shall be assessed, in the manner directed above.

The Writ Pet