IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2306 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJITHA P.M., W/O.SAINUDHEEN.T.K, THEKKAN HOUSE, P.O.BLANGAD, VIA- CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, KADAPPURAM, VIA-CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.2306 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer of the petitioner is to quash Exts.P1 and P5 and to reconsider Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the 2nd respondent, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. The course and events pursued by the statutory authorities in finalizing the assessment in respect of the building tax has been explained by the respondents in the statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. It is stated therein that the total liability fixed as per Ext.P1 was only Rs.6000/- , out of which, the petitioner satisfied a sum of Rs.1500/- as a pre-condition to sustain the appeal. Even though the appellate authority provided an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the actual facts and figures, it is stated in paragraph 4 of the statement filed before this Court and also in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to produce the requisite documents and it was in the said circumstance, that the proceedings were finalized declining interference in the appeal; W.P (C) No.2306 of 2010 2 simultaneously giving necessary directions to the Village Officer to realize the balance amount of Rs.4500/- due under the building tax. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality and as such no inference is warranted in this regard. 3. However, in respect of the submission made from the part of the petitioner as to the probability to demand 'luxury tax' under u/S.5A of the Act, it is clearly stated in para 4 of the very same statement filed from the part of the respondents, that no 'luxury tax' was imposed since the Panchayat authorities reported on 21.12.2007 that the building assessment by them had been effected with effect from '1993-1994' onwards. In other words, the building was constructed prior to the appointed day of 1.4.1999, which means such building will not attract 'luxury tax' under any circumstance. In the above circumstances the factual position as above is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of. P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.2306 of 2010 3 W.P (C) No.2306 of 2010 4