IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9487 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.M.PAULOSE, AGED 55, S/O.P.P.MATHAI, PAZHAYIDAYIL, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMABAVOOR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., KOLENCHERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 9487 OF 2009 E -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th April, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of a residential building. According to the petitioner, the plinth area if the garage is excluded will be 253.71 Sq. Metres and hence it will not be exigible to luxury tax under Section 5A. Petitioner was, however, assessed. He carried the matter before the Revenue Divisional Officer and still further, before the District Collector in Revision. It appears that the matter was directed to be redone and Ext.P1 is the order passed by the District Collector. Ext.P1 is dated 16.11.2005. In Ext.P1, of course, the Collector has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner has failed to make good his case. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the RDO on a petition filed by the petitioner dated 24.11.2007 seeking to exclude the portion occupied by the garage. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader on WPC.9487/09 E 2 instructions submits that if the portion occupied by the garage is excluded, the plinth area of the petitioner's residential building will come to nearly 256 Sq. Metres. and he will not be liable to pay luxury tax. learned Government Pleader also submits that the legal position relating to exclusion of the portion occupied by the garage was declared only after Ext.P1. The Government has also brought out orders recognising the position that garage cannot be included for the purpose of reckoning luxury tax under Section 5A. It is true that Ext.P1 order is dated 16.11.2005. But, I must take note of the fact that luxury tax is recurring liability as it is payable every year. In such circumstances, I feel that the petitioner cannot be denied relief on the ground that the impugned order is dated 16.11.2005. Ext.P1 is accordingly quashed. The third respondent District Collector will pass fresh orders with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, keeping in view the legal position that the portion occupied by the garage is to be excluded for calculating the WPC.9487/09 E 3 plinth area. The matter will be redone within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge