IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3192 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ------------------ P.I. NAZAR, S/O PARAYIL IBRAHIMKUTTY, PARAYIL HOUSE, SANTHIPURAM P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KODUNGALLUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.3192 of 2010-Y ---------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent, against the assessment order passed by the third respondent under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, fixing the liability to pay the 'Luxury Tax' was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order, stating that it is time barred, which was subjected to challenge in Ext.P4 proceedings filed before the first respondent, which also took the same turn, as borne by Ext.P5 order of rejection. The petitioner is before this Court, stating that the course followed by the respondents is not correct or proper and very much contrary to the statutory prescription. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the even though the steps taken by the assessee to challenge the impugned orders with regard to the payment of Luxury Tax under Section 5A of the Act have become final, the assessee is entitled to challenge the subsequent orders as and when the cause of action arises, as the liability to pay Luxury Tax u/S 5A is for every year, W.P(C) No.3192 of 2010-Y 2 unlike Building Tax payable u/S 5, which is a one time affair. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Mohammed Saddique V. Tahsildar (2006(3) KLT 271) (2006 KHC 875) 4. This Court finds that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Mohammed Saddique V. Tahsildar (supra) and accordingly, the impugned orders Ext.P3 and P5 are set aside and the third respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh, with respect to the subsequent years. The proceedings shall be finalised as above, in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that the challenge is confined to imposition of the Luxury Tax under Section 5A and not applicable to the assessment of the Building Tax u/S.5. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge