IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 6718 of 2007(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KADUNGAMKUNNATH SAIDALI, S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, P.O.MUTHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI PRADEEP FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the plan of the building Ext.P2. True copy of the assessment order issued by the 3rd respondent dated 17.6.2005. Ext.P3. True copy of the assessment order dated 20.6.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P4. True copy of the appeal memorandum filed by the petitioner dated 15.7.2005. Ext.P5. True copy of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 20.5.2006. Ext.P6. True copy of the revision petition dated 15.3.2006. Ext.P7. True copy of the order of the Ist respondent dated 16.11.2006. // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.6718 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Demand for luxury tax levied under the Kerala Building Tax Act is under challenge. 2. Admittedly the petitioner owns a building having a total plinth area of 337.18 square meters, situated in R.S. No.137/06 of Vattamkulam Village. Return was submitted describing the building as residential quarters, each having plinth area of 290 square meters. On verification it was found that the plinth area was 337.18 square meters. It was accordingly that tax was levied. Appeal and revision were dismissed. 3. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the building consist of individual units let out for residential purposes. According to the counsel, quarters is not a residential building to be levied tax. It is also contended that if at all tax is to be levied, each of the units should be separately assessed. 4. First of all, Section 2(l) defines residential building and there is no exclusion of quarters and hence, the term `building' as WP(c).No.6718/07 /2/ defined in the Act includes quarters as well. 5. Therefore, even if the contention of the petitioner that the building in question is a residential quarters, that will not absolve the petitioner of the liability to pay tax. 6. In so far as the contention that each of the units should be separately assessed, that contention is available to the petitioner only if the case of the petitioner comes within the scope of second exception to Section 2(e) of the Act, which provides that where a building consists of different apartments owned by different persons and the cost of construction of the building was met by all such persons jointly, each such apartments shall be deemed to be a separate unit. In this case there is no case for the petitioner that the building is owned by different persons or that the cost of construction was met by such persons jointly. In such a situation, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the second explanation to Section 2(e), and if so, the tax has to be levied on the total plinth area as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act. If so there is no substance in the contention that each of the units have to be separately assessed. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WP(c).No.6718/07 /2/