IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10339 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.A.MOHAMMED SAGIR, S/O.LATE A.M.ALI, AMMANAM VEETTIL, EDAVANAKADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR. KKM.SHERIF MR. A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN MR. LAL K.JOSEPH MS. SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORTKOCHI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOCHI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 10339 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The main issue involved in the present Writ Petition is against the proceedings taken by the respondents for assessing 'building tax' as well as 'luxury tax' under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, reckoning the 'truss work area' as well to be within the 'plinth area' defined under Section 2 (k) of the Act. 2. Original assessment was finalized by the third respondent as per Ext.P2 dated 28.11.2008, which in turn was subject to challenge by filing appeal before the second respondent, who passed Ext.P3 order, whereby the impugned order was set aside and the third respondent/assessing authority was directed to pass fresh assessment order, after excluding the 'car porch', being contrary to the statutory prescriptions. It is seen that the third respondent, pursuant to Ext.P3 order passed by the appellate authority, effected reassessment after excluding the car porch and fixed the liability on the petitioner as per Ext.P5, which is now under challenge, also contending that 'truss work area', is not liable to be reckoned as part of 'plinth area' in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Padmanabhan Vs. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 295). This being the position, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders, cannot have any further existence at all. WP (C) No. 10339 of 2009 : 2 : 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. During the course of hearing, it has brought to the notice of this Court that the legal question as to whether 'truss work area' is covered or not, stands answered in favour of the petitioner. The calculation of the actual 'plinth area' however does require reconsideration by the assessing authority, in view of some factual disputes as to the measurement involved. 5. In the said circumstances, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the third respondent is directed to pass fresh assessment orders, taking note of the actual reckonable 'plinth area' of the building in question, of course after deleting the 'truss work area' from the zone of consideration in view of the law declared by this Court. Necessary proceedings in this regard shall be finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd