IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9147 of 2006(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.T.HAMZA, S/O.VEERAN HAJI, PALAPATTA THENGUMTHODI, P.O.,PANNIPPARA, MANAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, (SPECIAL GRADE, EDAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ERANAD, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C NO.9147 OF 2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the Certificate dated 13.3.2006. Ext.P2: True copy of the Notice dated 30.6.2004. Ext.P3: Representation dated 14.3.2006. Ext.P4: True copy of the Recovery notice issued to the petitioner. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ P.A TO JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C)No.9147 OF 2006 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ 1. Challenge in this writ petition against Ext.P2 and P4 notices, issued for determination and recovery of Building Tax and Luxury Tax. the petitioner is also seeking directions against the 1st respondent for intimating date of completion of construction of his building, to the 2nd respondent. The disputed question pertains to assessment of Luxury Tax with respect to the building of the petitioner, under S.5A of Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Through Ext.P2 notice, the 2nd respondent had requested the petitioner to produce documents if any evidencing date of completion of the building. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P2, he submitted Ext.P3 request before the 1st respondent, to forward a certificate to the Thahasildar evidencing that the petitioner's building was completed in the year 1992. It is contented by the petitioner that now Ext.P4 Revenue Recovery W.P.(C)No.9147 of 2006 2 notice have been issued demanding an amount of Rs.17,400/- towards arrears of Building Tax. which is unsustainable. 2. The proceedings under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act now intimated is pursuant to assessments of Building Tax or Luxury Tax made against the petitioner. As per the statute the petitioner is provided with appellate remedies against such assessments. Therefore the petitioner, if he is aggrieved has to work out his remedies by way of statutory appeal or revision as provided under the Kerala Building Tax Act. Hence the writ petition cannot be entertained, especially when the petitioner had not even produced copies of the assessment orders. Therefore the writ petition does not deserve consideration and dismissed accordingly. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. spc