IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH MAY 2010 / 21ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14558 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.SUKUMARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KARAPPAN, PARAMEL HOUSE,"PADINJARA NADA" GURUVAYOOR,THRISSUR DITRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. ASSESSING AUTHORITY & TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR. GOVT.PLEADER(TAXES) SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.14558 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the levy of laxury tax on the residential building belonging to him. Ext.P2 is the order of assessment. As per Ext.P2 order, laxury tax has been imposed in respect of the period 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. Thereafter, Ext.P3 notice dated 4.8.09 was issued to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent. However, as per Ext.P5 order, the second respondent has rejected Ext.P4 appeal submitted by the petitioner on the ground that it was barred by limitation as per the provisions under the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. As already noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P2 would reveal that the assessment made thereunder cover from 2001 up to 2007. Subsequently, in terms of Ext.P2, the petitioner has remitted the tax for the aforesaid period. However, Ext.P3 notice dated 4.8.2009 pertains to the period 2009-2010. Ext.P4 would show that the same was filed against Ext.P3 as W.P.(C) NO.14558/2010 2 well. Therefore, the finding in Ext.P5 to the effect that the appeal is barred by limitation cannot be held sustainable pertaining to the period 2009- 2010. Ext.P4 appeal was filed within six months from Ext.P3 notice. Going by the decision of this Court in Mohammad Sadik v. Tahsildar reported in 2006(3) KLT 271, it is maintainable to the said extent. The grounds raised in Ext.P4 appeal, in so far as it is against Ext.P4 is bound to be considered on merits. The fact that Ext.P2 has become final cannot stand in the way of such a consideration in the light of the decision reported in 2006(3) KLT 271 (supra). Therefore, Ext.P4 to the extent it pertains to the period 2009-2010 is set aside and consequently, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 appeal, in so far it relates to Ext.P3, on merits. The Writ Petition stands dismissed in all other aspects. Subject to the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.14558/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.14558 /2010 JUDGMENT 11th May, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.14558/2010 4