IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22165 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RAJU THOMAS, RAJ COTTAGE ANGADIKKALMURI VADAKEDATH, CHENGANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNUR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.22165 of 2010-U ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of finalisation of the liability under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act for satisfying the demand of luxury tax in respect of the building constructed by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, on receipt of notice issued by the concerned respondent, the liability was satisfied by the brother of the petitioner, as the petitioner was serving abroad. It is only on his return, the petitioner could realise that the building was having less than the requisite area of 278.7M2 and outside the purview of any liability under Section 5A, which accordingly was sought to be challenged by filing Ext.P6 appeal preferred before the second respondent. The said appeal happened to be dismissed as per Ext.P7, stating that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was belated; which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. With regard to the nature and scope and extent of liability under Section 5A, it has been made clear by this Court that W.P(C) No.22165 of 2010-U 2 the said liability arrives every year and this being the position, separate causes of action available to the party concerned every year and as a natural consequence, the question of delay will not be relevant in respect of the subsequent cause of action. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that dismissal of Ext.P6 appeal as per Ext.P7 will not stand in the way of the petitioner with regard to the right of challenge the liability in respect of the subsequent cause of action. As such, if the petitioner files any petition before the third respondent, with regard to the liability to satisfy the Luxury Tax under Section 5A in respect of the subsequent years, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner is at liberty to produce all the requisite documents including Ext.P1 plan and such other materials to substantiate his case. It is made clear that, the amount already stated as satisfied by the petitioner in respect of the liability under Section 5A will not liable to be refunded under any circumstances. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ab JUDGE