Exts.P8 and P9 orders are under challenge.
2. The petitioner is the owner of a building, in which a factory is run by his son under the name and style, NCH castings. The petitioner alleges that he is having factory licence and other related documents. The petitioner sought for permission from the Government for exemption provided to Factories under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, for payment of building tax, which was refused as per Ext.P8 order. Subsequently, Ext.P9 Assessment Order has been issued. The reason for rejecting the petitioner's request was that the number of employees under the business concern was only seven. It is in this context, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Joseph D'Cunha [2013 (4) KLT 279]. There, the Government denied exemption to a factory owner on the ground that the W.P.(C) No. 35225 of 2011 ..2..
minimum number of employees are not employed in the factory and therefore, the establishment cannot be considered as a factory to extend benefit of exemption. It was held by the Division Bench that it was proper and therefore, the factory owner is not entitled to exemption under Sec.3(1)(b). Viewed in that profile, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by Ext.P9, the petitioner was directed to remit tax in four instalments and the learned counsel sought for permission to clear off the liability in six instalments. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner's prayer is allowed.
The writ petition is dismissed permitting the petitioner to clear off the entire liability in six instalments within a period of six months starting from 01.07.2014.
bka/-
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE