IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 705 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24380/2008 Dated 22/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- P.T.SHAMSUDHEEN ,RESIDING AT PUTHURATHODI, KODATHIPADI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM,PALAKKAD. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PALAKKAD. BY G.P. SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.705 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to issue direction to the revisional authority to revise petitioner's building tax assessment based on a belated revision petition filed against assessment. If the revision filed is time barred, then of course this court cannot confer jurisdiction on the revisional authority to consider revision petition on merits. However, in this case the challenge is basically against demand of luxury tax which is there only if plinth area is above 278.7 sq. meres and if the completion of construction of the residential building was on or after 1.4.1999. The appellant's specific case is that though the original assessment was a mistake and he has paid the building tax, he is entitled to challenge recurring demand of luxury tax for every year. In many cases this court has taken the view that since luxury tax is a recurring liability, there is no limitation in as much as any year's demand can be 2 challenged, if it is not tenable. Therefore, rejection of challenge against demand of luxury tax on ground of limitation is liable to be interfered with. The Writ Appeal is therefore allowed vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge with direction to the Tahsildar to remeasure the plinth area of the appellant's building excluding the car porch and if it is found to be below the limit that attracts luxury tax, then not to recover any outstanding luxury tax from the appellant. However, there is no scope for considering or granting refund of luxury tax paid against assessments and demands, without contest. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms