A writ petitioner cannot re-agitate an exemption claim under the Building Tax Act that has already been adjudicated and confirmed by the Court in earlier proceedings, as the matter has attained finality.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s. Spinner Marketing (Reg Partnership Firm) and the Managing Director of M/s Spinner Plastic Industries Limited (Public Limited Company). Both units are engaged in the manufacturing activities of various products of rubber and plastics in the name and style of "SPINNER." According to the petitioner, both units are engaged in manufacturing activities of various products of rubber. The grievance of the petitioner highlighted in this writ petition is in relation to the denial of exemption of the building owned by the petitioner under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Exemption was sought by the petitioner on the ground that the building in question is being used for the running of a factory, and therefore, it is entitled to exemption.

2. Earlier, Ext.P11 was passed by the 4^th respondent, demanding an amount of Rs.6,26,400/- as tax in respect of the said building. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.25357 of 2022, and the said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P13 judgment, directing the 1st respondent to decide the question of eligibility of the petitioner to get exemption. In compliance with the direction in Ext.P13 judgment, the matter was taken up by the Government and Ext.P14 order was passed. In Ext.P14, after examining the documents produced by the petitioner, the claim of exemption was rejected. The petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P. (C).No.43494 of 2024 before this Court, and Ext.P15 judgment was passed in the said writ petition.

3. As per the said judgment, the contention of the petitioner regarding the claim of exemption was found to be not justifiable, and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, as per Ext.P15 judgment, the 4^th respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders of assessment of the building involved in the case, after hearing the petitioner. During the course of the hearing that took place in compliance with the directions in Ext.P15, the petitioner produced certain documents regarding the registration obtained from the Department of Factories and Boilers, the muster roll of the employees, etc., and again re-agitated the claim of exemption under Section 3(1)(b). However, the 4^th respondent passed Ext.P16 rejecting the same. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, challenging Ext.P16.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. Thus, the main contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is in relation to the entitlement of the petitioner to get an exemption as contemplated under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. However, the said claim is already considered by the competent authority, namely, the 1^st respondent, and Ext.P14 order has been passed, wherein, after examining the documents and based on the inspection report of the 4th respondent, a categorical factual finding was entered into, to the effect that, the building is not being used for any purposes for which exemption contemplated under Section 3(1)(b) is permitted. The said finding is confirmed by this Court in Ext.P15 judgment, wherein, in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9, the following observations were made.

7. On a consideration of the rival contentions and on a perusal of Ext.P14, I am of the view that the petitioner’s claim for exemption was rightly rejected by the Goverment. In the impugned order Ext.P14, it is specifically mentioned that there was nothing to indicate that any manufacturing activity was being carried out in the building in question. The report of the Tahsildar referred to in the impug