IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16479 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KHADEEJA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. LATE KUTTY HASSAN, KAKKATTUMMAL HOUSE, ANANGANADI VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.U.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16479 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the finalization of the proceedings by the respondents; particularly with regard to the fixation of 'luxury tax' under section 5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, wrongly reckoning the 'plinth area' much above the actual extent shown in Ext.P2 plan. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to Ext.P1 order fixing the 'building tax' under Section 5, reckoning the plinth area of 315.38 m2 and the subsequent demand in respect of the 'luxury tax' under Section 5 A, the petitioner was forced to satisfy the liability till the year 2005. However, it is stated that the petitioner could not pursue the matter further, particularly with regard to the liability to pay 'luxury tax' under Section 5 A on time. Though appeal and revision petition were filed before the concerned authorities, interference was declined, stating that the proceedings were belated. The learned counsel further submits that the liability to pay 'luxury tax' under Section 5 A, unlike the liability to satisfy the 'building tax' under Section 5, stands entirely on a different pedestal. Since the cause of action arises every year, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the concerned authority. 2 WP(C) No. 16479/2010 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the law declared by this Court in Mohamad Sadik Vs. Tahsildar [2006 (3) KLT 271], this Court finds that the impugned orders to the extent they fix the liability in respect of the luxury tax under Section 5 A of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act upon the petitioner are not correct or sustainable and accordingly they are set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter with regard to the fixation of the liability under Section 5A (luxury tax) in accordance with law, with reference to the relevant materials including Ext.P2 plan and such other documents, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; which shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. If the 3rd respondent finds, on finalization of the proceedings as above, that the building concerned does not have the requisite plinth area to have imposed the luxury tax under Section 5A, the amounts already remitted by the petitioner need not be refunded and the benefit will stand confined only in respect of the subsequent years from 2005. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc