IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10629 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MR.JOSE SEBASTIN, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, KUDAKACHIRA P.O., VIA. MARANGATTUPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686 635. BY ADV. SMT.SHERLY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE R.D.O., MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLICHIRA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.10629 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the liability to pay the 'luxury tax' under section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The case of the petitioner is that the total 'plinth area' reckoned by the assessing authority is quite wrong and that the plinth area, even on including the 'car porch', will not come any way near the specified extent of 278.7 sq.m., so as to attract the tax liability under Section 5A. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P1 plan to sustain the contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was constrained to satisfy the demand made by the respondents, only because of the compelling circumstances and is now under further threat, under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (RR Act). 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. W.P.(C).No.10629 OF 2010 2 3. Unlike the liability to pay Building Tax under Section 5, the liability to pay 'Luxury Tax' under Section5A gives rise to a continuing cause of action and the petitioner is very much at liberty to challenge the same as and when the cause of action arises every year, as held by this Court in Mohamad Sadik v. Tahsildar (2006 (3) KLT 271). 4. The position whether the 'car porch' area is liable to be included within the purview of the 'plinth area' defined under Section 2(k) stands already answered by this Court in the negative, as per the decision rendered in Subashchandrababu v. State of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 189). As it stands so, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the 4th respondent, with regard to the 'future liability' of the petitioner, under Section 5A, to satisfy the demand in respect of the 'Luxury Tax'. 5. In the above circumstances, petitioner is permitted to file a petition before the 4th respondent, seeking W.P.(C).No.10629 OF 2010 3 necessary reliefs with regard to the current/future liability to pay 'Luxury Tax' under Section 5A, within 2 weeks, on which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be rendered, taking note of the observations made above and also giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is also made clear that the liability of the petitioner to pay the 'Luxury Tax' as above will stand confined only with regard to the current year onwards and the liability already satisfied by the petitioner, in respect of the previous years will not be refunded under an circumstances. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl