IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 1668 of 2005(B) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20530/2005 Dated 12/07/2005 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ P.C. SCARIA, PULPARAYIL HOUSE, KAKKOOR, THIRUMARADI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.CHATHUKUTTY NAMBIAR SRI.RAJAKRISHNAN. K RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUMARADI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REVENUE AND TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1668 of 2005 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 4h day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT P.R.Raman, J. The challenge in the writ petition was against the imposition of luxury tax on buildings fixing the plinth area as the criteria. Luxury tax is imposed on a building, the plinth area of which is 278.72 sq.metrs and above. The learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up for consideration, dismissed the writ petition following the earlier decision reported in Koshy P.John v. State of Kerala (2003 (3) KLT 918). As the followed decision was apparently a Single Bench decision and in so far the correctness of which was canvassed in appeal, a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala (2004 (2) KLT 706) upheld the principles held therein and found that imposition of tax on luxury basing on plinth area is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and upheld the constitutionality of the provision. 2. This writ appeal was preferred challenging the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge. Now that W.A.No.1668 of 2005 2 the Division Bench itself has in the reported decision upheld the validity of the Act, unless the correctness of the decision rendered by the Division Bench is in any way doubted by us, the matter is squarely covered and therefore, no relief can be granted to the appellant. In that view of the matter, we have perused the Division Bench judgment reported in Sudhakaran's case. It was held in paragraph 6 of the judgment that the assessment of luxury tax on the basis of plinth area is not illegal, though the contention was otherwise. True, that there are other methods for levying the tax as well, but it is not for the Court to decide which method is to be adopted as the basis for levy. It is the Legislature which has to choose the method and if it is reasonable and not irrational, the Court cannot interfere. The assessment of luxury tax on the basis of plinth area was also found to be reasonable. The contention now raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the fixation of plinth area to an extent of 278.7 sq. metrs itself is irrational in that it is fixed without considering the total number of persons intended to reside in a building. According to him in a family consisting of more number of members, the area required will be more, compared to the family of less number of members. Therefore, according to him, they cannot uniformly fix 278.7 sq. metres as the plinth area for attracting levy of luxury tax. Thus, according to him more area should be allowed for a family consisting W.A.No.1668 of 2005 3 of more number of members and considering the lesser number of family members the plinth area could be less to attract the levy of luxury tax. In other words, virtually his contention is that the plinth area as such cannot be fixed as the criteria because according to him the levy of luxury tax will depend upon the plinth area which itself could vary from family to family. This Court in emphatic term held that the basis for fixation of levy could either be the area or the cost of construction. In this case, the Legislature has adopted the method of levying tax on luxury based on the area of construction. True, that better methods could have been adopted, but this Court cannot substitute the wisdom of the Legislature and say that the Legislature could have adopted another method in preference to the method now followed. The question is whether it is arbitrary and illegal. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the fixation of plinth area as the basis of taxation is in any way irrational or arbitrary. We reject the contention of the appellant. Writ appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vns