IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 31579 of 2002(H) --------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. JEESON GEORGE, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. JAMES MATHEW, EDAKKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KOZHIPILLIKARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. E.M.BABU, ERUMALA HOUSE, KARUKADOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY OF STATE, SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. 2. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRII. V.TEK CHAND THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.31579/2002 ORDER ON CMP. NO.53479/2002 IN OP. NO.31579/2002 DISMISSED 25.03.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 27..02 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 8.8.02 ISSUED BYTHE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 27.3.02 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ======================= O.P.No.31579 of 2002-H. ======================= Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 whereby Luxury Tax was proposed to be charged on all residential buildings completed on or after the first day of April, 1999. The constitutional validity of the said provision has been upheld by this Court in the decisions reported in Koshy P.John v. State of Kerala (2003(3) KLT 918) and in Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala (2004(2) KLT 706). It was also held that the fixation of the cut off date as 1.4.1999 was not illegal. 2. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition there is no case that the building was constructed prior to the appointed day namely, 1.4.1999. Therefore there is no illegality in the assessment of luxury tax. In that view of the matter Exts.P2 & P3 do not call O.P.No.31579 of 2002-H. -: 2 :- for any interference in this case. The writ petition is dismissed. 3. Since the recovery was stayed by this Court as per order in CMP.No.53479/2002 dated 28.10.2002, it is made clear that no interest can be levied for the amounts due from that date. The petitioners will be allowed to remit the amount in four equal monthly instalments starting from April, 2008. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-