IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TH MONDAY, THE 14 DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 16132 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

JULIAN XAVIER J., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. M.J. JOSEPH (LATE), MANGALATH, PUTHENPURAYILAYA PUNCHATHALAKAL (H), KADUTHURUTHY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686604 BY ADVS.

SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN SRI.JOSE. V.V. (THENGATHARA)

SRI.ROY JOSEPH SMT.ANIES MATHEW SMT.CHRISTEENA AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM, PIN - 686141

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686613 BY ADV ARUN AJAY SHANKAR, G.P.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a building situated in Re-

Sy.No.15/2013 of Muttuchira Village. The petitioner had constructed a shed/building for the purpose of starting a workshop in the said property which comes within the jurisdiction of Kaduthuruthy Grama Panchayat. After completion of the building, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 notice, requiring the petitioner to produce documents for the purpose of assessment of the building for tax payable under the Kerala Building Tax Act. In response, Ext.P5 objection was submitted by the petitioner, before the 2^nd respondent, seeking exemption from payment of tax, as according to him, the said building was constructed to be used for housing a workshop, which has to be exempted under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.

2. However, the said objection was rejected by the 2^nd respondent, and Ext P6 communication in this regard was issued. In Ext.P6, it was intimated by the 2^nd respondent that, since the petitioner is not the person who is operating the workshop and he rented out the building to a third person, exemption cannot be granted. Consequently, Ext.P7 assessment order and P7(a) demand notice were also issued, requiring the petitioner to pay tax. The said orders were challenged by the petitioner by approaching this Court by filing W.P(C) No.6359/2023 and it culminated in Ext.P8 judgment. In the said judgment this Court quashed impugned assessment order and demand notice, and the 2^nd respondent was directed to forward the request of the petitioner for exemption to the 1^st respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment and thereupon the 1^st respondent was directed to consider the question of exemption. 3. In compliance of the judgment, Ext.P9 notice was issued to the petitioner, by the 1^st respondent, requiring him to furnish the documents to substantiate his claim regarding the exemption. In response to Ext.P9, Ext.P10 communication was issued along with necessary documents, including the license obtained from the Panchayat. Exts.P10(b), P10(c) to P11 in this writ petition are the documents forwarded along with Ext.P10. However, without considering any of the said documents, Ext.P12 order was passed rejecting the claim of exemption of the petitioner. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances.

4. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 2^nd respondent in support of the view taken in the impugned orders.

5. I have heard Sri.Sudhish Kumar S., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether any interference is required in Ext.P12. As far as Ext.P12 order is concerned, the same was passed mainly on the ground that, the petitioner failed to produce any documents to substantiate the claim for exemption. Apparently, the view taken by the 1^st respondent in Ext.P12 is that, the petitioner failed to produce documents to show that, the building was being used as a workshop at the time of asses