IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16176 of 2009(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SAJU JOSEPH,S/O.JOSEPH, ELAYIDATHU KUDIYIL,POOTHRIKKA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682 308,REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY HOLDER E.T.JOHNY, S/O.E.U.THOMAS,45 YEARS,ELAYIDATHU KUDIYIL, POOTRIKKA P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 308. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, MR.BRIJESH MOHAN, MR.T.R.SADEESAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 16176 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the third respondent, fixing liability of the petitioner towards 'luxury tax' payable under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, the petitioner preferred Ext. P3 appeal before the second respondent, specifically contending that, out of the total plinth area of 302.51 M2 shown in Ext.P2 , an extent of 267.49 M2 alone was assessable, since the remaining area of 35.02 M2 was of the 'car porch', which was not liable to be reckoned in view of the statutory prescription and binding judicial precedents and also in view of Ext. P1 Circular issued by the Government. After considering the facts and figures, the appellate authority passed Ext. P4 order, whereby a specific finding was rendered that the said area of the 'car porch' has to be excluded for the purpose of assessment and accordingly, necessary directions were given to the third respondent to effect reassessment and finalise the W.P.(C) No. 16176 OF 2009 2 proceedings. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P4 order, the third respondent passed Ext. P5 order wherein the plinth area has been shown as 283.26 M2 and the tax liability has been fixed in tune with the above plinth area. The grievance of the petitioner is that absolutely no reference has been made by the third respondent to Ext.P4 order or as to the actual area of the car porch which was intended to be excluded. The representation preferred by the petitioner seeking to rectify the mistake was also turned down by the third respondent stating that the area of the car porch has already been excluded. 3. The facts and figures brought to light clearly reveals that the total area , even according to the third respondent, when the original assessment was made, was 302.51 M2 as shown in Ext.P2. In Ext.P3, break-up figures have been given whereby it was shown that the car porch has an area of 35.02 M2 , and that minusing the said extent from the total area, the plinth area to be assessed would come to 267.49 M2.. This being the position, taking note of the mandate in Ext. W.P.(C) No. 16176 OF 2009 3 P4 direction given by the appellate authority, the actual area which could have been assessed by the third respondent appears to be something else and not as shown in Ext.P5 reassessment order. In the said circumstances, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the third respondent. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside and the third respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in tune with Ext.P4 order. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk