IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30670 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOTTIYIL IBRAHIM, S/O.KUNHAHAMMED HAJI, PARAVENGAL HOUSE, PONMALA TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PARAVENGAL KUNHALI, S/O.MOHAMMED, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE THASILDAR, TIRUR. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30670 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Grievance of the petitioner is against assessment of Luxury Tax made under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. By virtue of Ext.P1 an amount of Rs.8000/- pertaining to the years 2002 to 2006, at the rate of Rs.2000/- per year, was assessed and demanded. The petitioner filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and subsequently filed revision before the District Collector. As per Ext.P2 the District Collector had rejected the revision petition mainly based on the defects and technicalities and also considering the merits of the contentions to a certain extent. However, subsequent to Ext.P2 order the petitioner has not chosen to rectify the defect and to pursue the revision petition before that authority. Instead a fresh appeal petition was filed before the RDO through the Power of Attorney Holder. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P8 order observing that the appeal was once dismissed and the same could not be entertained. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the building in question was completed construction prior to the cut off date of W.P.(C).30670/09-C 2 1.4.1999, and as such the petitioner is not liable for payment of tax under Section 5A. Further contention is that the building in question was already sold by him to another person, on 1.11.2001, and therefore he is not liable for payment of any amount of Luxury Tax, even assuming that there is any such liability. Since the assessment made under Ext.P1 stands confirmed through dismissal of the appeal and revision, I find no reason to interfere with the matter. The disposal of the revision petition was as early as in the year 2007 and there was no effective challenge against the same, till date. Hence at this point of time it is not proper to have a re-consideration of the matter. 3. However it is noticed that assessment of Luxury Tax under Section 5A is made on an year to year basis. Therefore the petitioner is at liberty to object assessment if proposed against him with respect to years further to the period covered under Ext.P1. Needless to say that the 2nd respondent is bound to consider objections of the petitioner with respect to assessment if any proposed against the petitioner. Therefore the 2nd respondent is directed to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and to afford opportunity of hearing, if any action is proposed for assessment of Luxury Tax under W.P.(C).30670/09-C 3 Section 5A for any subsequent period of Ext.P1 order, against the petitioner . The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb