Kerala

Idukki

CC/58/2023

Boby Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

Village officer - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 7.3.2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  10^th  day of  March, 2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.58/2023

Between

Complainants                                          : 1.  Boby Mathew, S/o. Mathew,

                                                                   Thengumpallil House,

                                                                   Kudayathoor P.O.,

                                                                   Thodupuzha – 685 590. 

     2.  Anu Josesph, W/o. Boby Mathew,

                                                                   Thengumpallil House,

                                                                   Kudayathoor P.O.,

                                                                   Thodupuzha – 685 590

 (By Adv:K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                       : 1. The Village Officer,

                                                                   Alakkode Village,

                                                                   Alakkode P.O.,

            Pin – 685 588.

      2.  The Tahsildar,

                                                                   Thodupuzha Taluk,

                                                                   Thodupuzha P.O.,

  Pin -  685 584.

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are briefly narrated hereunder :

 

          1^st complainant is the husband of 2^nd complainant.  1^st opposite party is Village Officer of Alakkode Village and 2^nd opposite party is Tahsildar of Thodupuzha taluk.  A No Objection Certificate was obtained from Kudayathoor             Grama Panchayath dated 16.10.2021 for the purpose of construction of residential building in the name of 2^nd complainant.  While the building was nearing completion, complainants have decided to construct another building with an area                                                                                                              (cont.....2)

• 2  -

 of 519 sq.ft., for the purpose of  office work, in connection with work from home arrangement, of 1^st complainant.  At the time when NOC was applied for the new proposed building, complainants were informed by panchayath officials that no separate NOC is necessary and matter can be considered when final plan is submitted.  Complainants had submitted final plan of both buildings after completing construction, in 2022.  Residential building with a sq.ft. area of 2795 was assessed at Rs.886/- and commercial building having sq.ft. area of 519 was assessed at Rs.1622/- for half-yearly tax to local authority.  When complainant had approached 1^st opposite party for getting possession certificate for the buildings, village authorities had come to measure the buildings for one time tax and luxury tax.  Though 1^st opposite party was informed by complainant that both buildings are separate and meant for different purposes, 1^st opposite party had refused to accept their contentions.  He had measured the buildings as one, arrived at its area at 3207 sq. ft. in total and assessed one time tax at Rs.14040/- and Rs.5000/- towards annual luxury tax.  When assessment was protested by complainants, 1^st opposite party had obtained another form filled up by complainants for the purpose of forwarding the file to 2^nd opposite party.  Officials had come from taluk office to measure the building, however, they had also refused to assess both buildings separately.  Complainant submitted that building with sq. ft. area 2795 was constructed by them for residential purposes.  It was numbered as 68/B as residential building by panchayath.  Similarly, building with sq. ft. area of 519 was numbered as 68/C by panchayath and assessed as  commercial building.  Both buildings have separate plans.  Commercial building was constructed for accommodating  office of 1^st complainant and larger residential building was meant only for residence  of complainants.  Assessing both buildings together for one time annual tax and luxury tax by opposite parties is not in accordance with law.  Both buildings are existing separately.  Both were separately numbered  by  panchayath.  Despite this, assessing both buildings as one for one time tax and luxury tax amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Complainants therefore pray for a direction against opposite parties to measure both buildings separately for the purpose of assessing one time tax and luxury tax if any.  Both seek compensation of Rs.50,000/- from opposite parties towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  They also pray for litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

 

          Along with the complaint, 6 documents are produced.  One is NOC received from panchayath dated 16.10.2021.  2^nd  document is receipt for payment of tax                                                                                                         (cont....3)

• 3  -

relating to residential building (68/B) and 3^rd  document is receipt for payment of tax to panchayath for commercial building (68/C).  4^th document is letter received from 2^nd opposite party regarding luxury tax and  5^th document is letter from the same party with regard to assessment of one time tax.  6^th document is letter issued by 2^nd opposite party seeking production of documents from complainants.

 

          We have perused the complaint and documents.  Along with complaint, an application is filed under Section 38(8) of the Act seeking an interim direction against opposite parties from realisation of one time and luxury tax for building numbers 68/B and 68/C, situated in Kudayathoor Panchayath.  We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for complainants.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)   Whether complaint is maintainable before this Commission ?

2)  Order to be passed ?

 

Point No.1 :

 

          Learned counsel for complainants has contended that complainants are paying tax for the building and therefore opposite parties are to be considered as service providers.  Improper assessment of tax by them amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

          We are unable to agree with these contentions.  Complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties upon the premises that two buildings of complainants, one meant for residence and other for commercial purpose were assessed jointly as one by opposite parties for the purpose of fixing one time and luxury tax payable to Govt.  Collection of tax by Govt. either in the form of property tax, basic tax or in any other form is an exercise of it’s sovereign power.  In this context, decision of Hon’ble State Commission of Kerala in Appeal 282/2017, in the matter of Tahsildar Idukki Taluk, Tahsildar and others Vs. Mathai, S/o. Mathai is very much relevant.  This decision of Hon’ble State Commission of Kerala is based upon the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of K. Mohanasundaram Vs. K.U. Gopalakrishnan Nair [2016 NCJ 564 (NC)], wherein it was held that complaint under Consumer Protection Act against functioning of Revenue Department is not maintainable. There is no consumer—service provider relationship between complainants and Govt, in the matter of tax assessment or tax collection. There are                                                                                                         (cont......4)

• 4  -

statutory authorities to decide these matters and to reconsider or reverse the assessment or it’s fixation.  Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint will not lie before this Commission as there is  inherent  lack of jurisdiction to consider the same.  Complaint is not maintainable.  Point is answered accordingly.

 

Point No.2 :

 

          In the result, complaint and interim application filed along with are  rejected.  Complainant shall take back extra sets of copies.

 

                Pronounced by this Commission on this the   10^th   day of March, 2023

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                      SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

 SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                   Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

                                                                         Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                                                                     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR