IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 2195 of 2005(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. IBRAHIM, KOOLIKAD HOUSE, CHITTARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.M RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KASARGOD AT KANHANGAD. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2004 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BUILDING TAX ASSESSMENT REGISTER ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY DATED 25.2.2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.3.2004 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.4.2004 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 2195 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging demand of luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act for the building constructed by the petitioner on the ground that construction of the building was completed prior to 1.4.1999. However, appeal was rejected on account of defect in the document filed along with appeal. Counsel for the appellant contended that completion of the building was over prior to 1.4.1999 and Panchayath has issued certificate to that effect. Government Pleader pointed out that this Court has taken the view that Panchayath certificate is not conclusive evidence about the date of completion of construction of the building. In fact it is seen that Panchayath gives building number for the purpose of taking electricity connection, water connection, etc., well in advance of full completion of construction of the building. Therefore Panchayath records or certificate issued by it cannot be taken as conclusive evidence on the date of completion of construction of the building. However, if the petitioner has taken regular electricity connection and has started using power for the residential purpose, then the same will be a valuable 2 piece of evidence as proof of date of completion of construction of the building. Government Pleader expressed a doubt that petitioner himself has given the date of completion of the building in the return as after 1.4.1999. If the petitioner has given the date of completion of construction of the building in the return filed, then there is no scope for giving opportunity to the petitioner to give evidence to the contrary. However, if the date of completion of construction of the building is not declared in the return, which is a matter to be verified by the Tahsildar, I direct the Tahsildar to reconsider the evidence produced by the petitioner such as details of electricity connection taken, first electricity bill paid after petitioner started occupying the building, invitation card for house-warming ceremony or any other piece of evidence including details of payment of panchayat tax, etc. If documents are produced as above, Tahsildar will reconsider the matter and rectify the assessment by recalling the demand of luxury tax if completion of construction of the building is proved to be on any date prior to 1.4.1999. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3