IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33439 of 2005(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KANDIYIL NARAYANAN, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANDIYIL HOUSE, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KEEZHARIYOOR, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DATED 7.10.96 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.1.2002 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.2002 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2003 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 5.9.2005 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2005 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 25.11.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 33439 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging demand of luxury tax in respect of his residential building which was stated to be completed in 1995. Even though the claim is that building was constructed before 1.4.1999, petitioner has not produced copy of the return filed under the Building Tax Act wherein date of completion of construction of the building is declared and assessment order is also not produced before this Court. According to Government Pleader, return was not furnished by the petitioner and assessment was made by the Tahsildar without reference to the return. In any case if residential building of the petitioner was constructed prior to 1.4.1999, then petitioner will not be liable to pay luxury tax irrespective of whether return was filed or not. However, I make it clear that remittance of property tax before the local authority, namely Panchayat is not a conclusive evidence about completion of construction of the building because in many cases property tax has to be paid before construction of the building for getting house number allotted for the purpose of making application for electricity connection, water connection, etc. W.P. is accordingly disposed of 2 directing the third respondent to verify assessment records and see whether petitioner has declared any date of completion of construction of the building prior to 1.4.1999 and whether assessment is completed based on such statement and if so, to withdraw the demand of luxury tax. If there is nothing on record about completion of construction of the building, Tahsildar will conduct enquiry and petitioner can also produce evidence such as first electricity bill, details of water connection taken, house warming ceremony, and the accounts pertaining to cost of construction incurred towards proof of date of completion of construction of the building. Tahsildar is directed to hear the petitioner, consider evidence and take a decision as to the date on which construction of the residential building was completed by the petitioner and if it is prior to 1.4.1999 to drop demand for luxury tax. Fresh adjudication orders will be passed within three months from now and petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the Tahsildar for compliance. Revenue recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance for three months, and recovery thereafter will be based on orders to be passed by the Tahsildar. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3