IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31464 of 2004(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.ASHRAF ALI, " ANVVAN", 2/2180-C, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'SEXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LICENSED ARCHITECT ENGINEER DATED 23.3.99 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 3.6.2003 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.6.2004 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.6.2004 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30.7.2004 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 3.9.2004 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 31464 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Writ Petition is filed challenging demand of luxury tax for the residential building constructed by the petitioner on the ground that construction was completed prior to 1.4.1999. However, it is seen from the records produced that petitioner admitted in the return filed, which is verified to be true by him, that completion of construction of the building was on 15.9.1999. Even though counsel for the petitioner referred to various items of evidence, including Engineer's report, in similar cases I have taken the view that no evidence is admissible against the admission made by the petitioner in the return filed, which will give an opportunity for manipulation. W.P. is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2