Delhi High Court quashes matrimonial FIR after settlement between parties.

The Kerala High Court set aside the State Government’s order denying building tax exemption to a spice manufacturing unit and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Court held that the Government erred in relying solely on the absence of a licence under the Factories Act and insufficient number of employees to reject the claim for exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. It observed that the term “factory” is not defined in the Act, and the reference to the Factories Act for interpreting the same was

unwarranted.

• The appellant, George Stephen, owned buildings (Nos. 7/452 and 7/519) in Thuravoor Grama Panchayat, where he operated a spice powder manufacturing unit.

• He was assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, though he claimed exemption under Section 3(1)(b), which exempts buildings used principally as factories or workshops.

• Following a prior High Court order (W.P.(C) No. 7454/2009), the matter was reconsidered, but the Government issued an order (Ext. P2 dated 17.10.2016) denying exemption on the grounds that (a) the unit lacked a valid factory licence from the Department of Factories and Boilers, and (b) it had only four employees.

• A consequent tax demand (Ext. P3) was issued. The appellant’s challenge in W.P.(C) No. 1844/2017 was dismissed by a Single Judge on 18.12.2024, prompting the present appeal.

• The Court found that the Building Tax Act does not define the term “factory” and does not expressly refer to the Factories Act, 1948, for determining its meaning. Hence, reliance on the Factories Act to interpret the term was misplaced.

• The appellant had subsequently produced relevant licences — including one from the Department of Factories and Boilers and another from the Industries Department dated 25.04.2015 — which were not considered earlier.

• The Bench noted that the key test under Section 3(1)(b) is whether the building is used principally as a factory or workshop, not necessarily whether it meets the headcount or registration criteria of the Factories Act.

• Given the fresh evidence and the erroneous approach of the authorities, the Court deemed it appropriate to remand the matter for a fresh decision.

• The writ appeal was allowed.

• The judgment of the Single Judge dated 18.12.2024, the Government order (Ext. P2), and the tax demand (Ext. P3) were set aside.

• The Government was directed to reconsider the appellant’s claim for exemption afresh in light of the newly produced documents, within four months from the date of judgment.

• Section 3(1)(b), Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 – Exemption for buildings used principally as factories or workshops.

• Factories Act, 1948 – Referred to but held inapplicable for defining “factory” under the Building Tax Act.

• Article 226, Constitution of India – High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Citation: 2025:KER:84366

Case: George Stephen v. Tahsildar, Aluva & Ors.

Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Coram: Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque & Justice Harisankar V. Menon

Date of Decision: 7 November 2025

Writ Appeal No.: 2196 of 2025 (arising out of W.P.(C) No. 1844 of 2017)