IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4130 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.KUNJIMON,S/O.MOIDUNNI, KOTTARAMVEETIL VALAPPIL HOUSE,PUNNAYOORKULAM, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP;BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,TRICHUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TRICHUR. 4. THE TAHSILDAR,CHAVAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.4130 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The assessment of the luxury tax in respect of the building belonging to the petitioner under Section 5(A) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, as per Ext.P7 order passed by the 4th respondent, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings have been finalized by the assessing authority, without any regard to the actual facts and figures; particularly including the 'car porch area' as well as the area meant for 'storage of fire wood', so as to have the plinth area fixed above the ceiling of 278.7 sq.mtrs to attract the 'luxury tax' payable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plinth area of the car porch as well as the space for storage of fire wood cannot be reckoned for calculating the plinth area in view of the law declared by this Court in Jayakumar Vs. State of Kerala [2006 (2) KLT 34] and Subhash Chand Babu Vs. State of Kerala [2006 (2) KLT 189]. W.P (C) No.4130 of 2010 2 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the proceedings in respect of the fixation of the liability under the Kerala Building Tax Act under Section 5(A) has already become final. However, it is fairly stated by the learned Government Pleader that the cause of action in respect of the liability under Section 5(A) as to the payment of 'luxury tax', it is a 'continuing one', in view of the dictum laid down in Mohamad Sadiq Vs. Tahsildar [2006 (3) KLT 271]. This being the position, the grievance of the petitioner could of course be caused to be reconsidered, subject to the condition that the petitioner clears the entire liability till 31.12.2009, though the petitioner is justified in agitating the matter with respect to the current year . 4. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P7 is set aside and the 4th respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, also taking note of the dictum laid down in the decisions cited supra and of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear W.P (C) No.4130 of 2010 3 that the petitioner shall clear the entire outstanding liability till 31.12.2009 and produce proof before the 4th respondent for finalisation of the proceedings as above. The matter shall be finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.4130 of 2010 4 W.P (C) No.4130 of 2010 5