IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 27051 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.K.JOSEPH, S/O.LATE M.K.KURIAKOSE, 55 YEARS OF AGE, RESIDING AT MANIVELIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SMT.MERRY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL, TALUK OFFICE, MEENACHIL, PALA. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 27051 OF 2008 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P4 and P5 and seeks a direction to conduct a proper enquiry regarding assessment of building to luxury tax in respect of the residential building of the petitioner. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner constructed a residential building. He completed the construction of the building during the financial year 1997 - 1998. But, during the year 2002, the third respondent issued a notice demanding luxury tax. Petitioner preferred Appeal with evidence to prove that he had completed the construction during the financial year 1997 - 1998. Ext.P1 is produced as the ownership certificate dated 29.10.1997. Ext.P2 is another ownership certificate dated 24.9.1998 issued by the fourth respondent. Petitioner completed the construction during the financial year 1997 - 1998. Exts.P3 and P4 are the WPC.27051/08 U 2 assessment order and notice. Ext.P5 is a demand notice dated 10.7.2008 for attachment of the property. Later on, after filing of the Writ Petition, petitioner filed an application as I.A. No.12813/08 praying for correction of the financial year as1998 - 1999 instead of 1997-1998 and that is allowed. 3. A Statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. Therein, it is stated that the residential building was constructed in the name of the petitioner and it was booked by the Village Officer, Ramapuram to assess building tax. Ext.R3 (a) is the Return filed by the petitioner. In Ext.R3(a), the date of completion of the building is shown as 1999 and the date of occupation is also shown as 1999. It is further stated that the Village Officer has reported that the plinth area is 339.5 m2. It is further stated that no records in respect of the Appeal claimed to be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala were obtained by the office of the third respondent. It is also stated that the assessee had agreed to produce the Panchayat Licence to find out actual year of completion of the building, but he did not WPC.27051/08 U 3 produce any records. 4. Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated that there was a mistake committed in stating the year as 1997 - 1998 instead of 1998 - 1999. It is stated that the second respondent did not answer as to why they were delaying to proceed against the petitioner till 10.7.2008. It is further stated that the respondents failed to disclose in which manner or what are the records they have relied for the finding that the construction of the building was completed only after 1.4.1999. It is stated that Ext.R3(a) does not give any date of completion. 5. I heard Shri Manuel Kachiramattam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for petitioner would reiterate the contentions. Learned Government Pleader was asked to get a copy of the Report from the Village Officer. The Village Officer has reported, he points out that the date of completion was 4.11.2000 and the date of occupation was 28.11.2000. Thus, it cannot be said that there is WPC.27051/08 U 4 no material before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority, in support of the case that the building is liable to luxury tax. That apart, I notice the following facts: Petitioner, originally in the Writ Petition, took up the contention that the building was constructed during the year 1997 - 1998. Thereafter, he filed correction petition which was allowed. By the correction, date of completion is stated to be 1998 - 1999. Ext.R3(a) is the Return submitted by the petitioner. In the Return, the date of completion is shown as in 1999. No doubt, the petitioner has not given the date of completion. There is considerable contradiction between the original version as stated in the Writ Petition, the version as sought to be set up after the correction petition was filed and the version as established by the production of the return filed by the petitioner himself. In such circumstances, it may not be illegal on the part of the Assessing Authority to have taken the view that the construction was made after 1.4.1999 on the basis of the Report of the Village Officer which the learned Government Pleader WPC.27051/08 U 5 points out, is made on the basis of enquiry. Therein, the date of completion is noted as 4.11.2000. In such circumstances, I feel that there is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge