IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18633 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANNAKUTTY,D/O.JOSEPH,KALLIDANTHIYIL HOUSE,KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE,MARANGATTUPILLY PANCHAYAT,KOTTAYAM-686634. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,CIVIL STATION,KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAI,KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,(ASSESSING AUTHORITY), MEENACHIL TALUK,PALAI,KOTTAYAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE,MARAMGATTUPILLI PANCHAYAT, PALAI,KERALA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 18633 of 2010-D ---------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the assessment finalised by the third respondent, fixing huge liability upon the petitioner under Section 5/5A, which in turn have been confirmed by the appellate authority, as well as the revisional authority as well. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition challenging the correctness and sustainability of the impugned proceedings. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the grievance of the petitioner is confined only to the fixation of liability under Section 5A ie. with regard to the liability to pay Luxury Tax, contending that the petitioner is not liable to satisfy the same and that the petitioner is also entitled to have it challenged, by virtue of the decision reported in Abdul Shukkoor V. District Collector, Ernakulam (ILR 2009(3) Kerala 346). 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. After hearing both the sides and also taking note of the limited relief pressed for, from the part of the petitioner, this Court finds that the matter requires to be re-considered by the third respondent with W.P(C) No. 18633 of 2010-D 2 regard to the assessment of the building No.VI/447D of Marangattupilli Panchayat in Kottayam District, which is stated as having assigned the new building No.VI/447E, as borne by Ext.P9. Pertaining to the assessment of Luxury Tax under Section 5A, in view of the law declared by this Court that the cause of action under Section 5A, to pay 'Luxury Tax' arises every year and that the party is at liberty to have it challenged. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned orders Exts.P3 to P7 and P12 passed by the assessment authority/appellate authority/revisional authority are set aside and the third respondent is directed to finalise the matter afresh in respect of the Luxury Tax payable under Section 5A, of course, after hearing the petitioner and the person concerned in favour of whom the property has already been transferred as per Ext.P5 settlement deed (who is the husband of the petitioner), which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, the amount already satisfied by the petitioner in respect of the Luxury Tax for the previous years is not liable to be refunded under any circumstances. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ab JUDGE //True Copy//