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

FRIDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 15340 OF 2025 PETITIONER:

MOHAMMED FAISAL, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K M ABDUL KHADER, KAKKAT, EDAPALLY NORTH, AIMS, AIMS PONEKKARA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN – 682 041.

BY ADVS.

SRI.V.S.MANSOOR SHRI.AHAMMED MIZWAR V.P.

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

2 TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK,PARK AVE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 011.

3 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PARK AVE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682

011.

SHRI.ARUN AJAY SANKAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Megha Marketing, which according to the petitioner is an MSME. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P3, by which the request made by the petitioner seeking exemption of the building of the petitioner from payment of building tax in the light of Section 3(1) b of the Kerala Building Tax Act was rejected. Consequently, Ext.P2 notice has been issued requiring the petitioner to pay the building tax for the said building. The contention of the petitioner is that, as the Unit of the petitioner is an MSME and is engaged in manufacturing activities, he is eligible for exemption contemplated under Section 3(1) b of the Kerala Building Tax Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that despite the eligibility, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Government without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence to substantiate his contentions.

2. I have heard Sri.V.S.Mansoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, learned Government Pleader.

3. On going through Ext.P3 order passed by the 1^st respondent, it is discernible that, it does not refer to any notice issued to the petitioner or any opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner. Since the issue decided in Ext.P3 was relating to the right of the petitioner to get exemption, same should not have been decided without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the materials to substantiate his contentions and hearing him. Since such an exercise has not been carried out while issuing Ext.P3, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3 with a direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the question of exemption to the petitioners building under Section 3(1) b of the Kerala Building Tax Act after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. It is clarified that, it shall be open for the petitioner to produce such evidence to substantiate his contention that he is eligible for exemption as per the above referred provision. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG/8.8.25

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15340/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED:- 12/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE

2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF IFTE & OS LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY TO THE FACTORY CUM WORKSHOP RUN BY THE PETITIONER