IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 9126 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.M.HAREENDRANATH, S/O. GOPALAN NAMBIAR, KOODALI P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOODALI VILLAGE, KOODALI P.O., KANNUR. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.9126/09 PETITIONER's EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.7.1.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.13.10.08 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.9126 Of 2009 I ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner owns a residential building constructed in Re- survey No.39/1A2 of Koodali Village. The subject matter of the dispute herein is with regard to assessment of luxury tax on the allegation that the building is having a plinth area of 292.14 M2 including the car porch. Exhibit P1 is the communication by the Tahsildar in this regard imposing the liability of `.2,000/- as luxury tax. An appeal filed against the same was dismissed on the ground of delay and a revision petition was filed which was disposed of by Exhibit P2 order. The view taken in Exhibit P2 is that even though the Government has excluded the car porch in computing the plinth area as per circular No.55815/03/ SLMC/03/RD dt.2.12.2003, as per the records, and the return filed by the petitioner, the building was completed in 2001. 2. The issue whether the car porch area can be included is concluded in favour of the petitioner in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Subhashchandrababu v. State of Kerala (2006(2) KLT 189). W.P.(C)No.9126/09 -2- 3. In the light of the above and in the light of the circular issued by the Government, there cannot be any doubt that the car porch area is liable to be excluded. If that be so, the assessment cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is allowed. Exhibits P1 and P2 are quashed. The amount paid by the petitioner will be refunded within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn