AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
On 28.09.2021, this Court had directed the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C).No.20393/2021, to accept the property tax from the writ petitioner for building bearing No.1/46 provisionally pending consideration of the writ petition. Alleging that 2nd respondent in the writ petition is not accepting the property tax as directed by this Court, this contempt petition has been preferred.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that, building No.1/46 falls in the resort category and that, petitioner has not offered the tax due for the said building. It was also stated that, an amount of Rs.87,558/- is due from the petitioner towards the property tax for the building No.1/46 for the period 2016-2017 and 2018-2019, and a further amount of Rs.13,19,950/- is due from the petitioner towards the property tax for the said building for unauthorised construction. The tax offered by the petitioner through Annexure A2 was only Rs.813/- and therefore, the same was not accepted. The photographs of the building has also been produced, apart from screen shots of the advertisement in ‘Make My Trip’ of a resort by the name ‘Sea Breeze Beach Inn’. It is alleged that, the said resort is claimed by the petitioner to be a residential building.
Having considering the aforesaid pleadings and submissions made on behalf of the respondent, I am of the view that, since there is a dispute on the quantum of tax offered by the petitioner and the actual tax allegedly due from the petitioner, the allegations regarding contempt committed by the respondent is misplaced. The order of this Court do not stipulate that, only Rs. 813/- is to be accepted. On the other hand, the order stipulates that, tax of building No.1/46 is to be accepted provisionally. Since the tax offered and the tax allegedly due from the building do not tally with each other, contempt cannot be alleged against the respondent.
Therefore, I am not satisfied that the respondent has committed contempt of court. Hence there is no merit in this contempt petition and it is dismissed.