IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9040 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.A.SALAM, MANAGING TRUSTEE AYSHA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST, PARUTHIKUZHI, MANAKAD POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -9 BY ADV. SRI. L.GOPALAKSRISHNAN POTI SRI.A.DINESH RAO RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE (SLMC) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 9040 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 17, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against levy of building tax. Ext.P5 is the notice of demand against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the RDO, which was disposed of by Ext.P7 order dated 1.6.2000. It is seen that the revision filed before the District Collector also was dismissed by Ext.P11 order dated 22.8.2001. Petitioner submits that the matter was pursued by filing yet another revision before the Government, though there is no second revision provided for in the Kerala Building Tax Act. Even that was rejected by Ext.P13 order dated 5.8.2003. It is challenging this proceedings that the writ petition has been filed. 2. In my view, the writ petition is highly belated and is only to be dismissed. 3. Even on merits, nothing has been made out for interference against the concurrent orders against the petitioner. The contention raised is that the construction of the building having been WP(C) 9040/08 Page numbers completed in 1988, the taxable event being the date of occupation, the levy be based only on the provision as it stood then. This contention based on the date of completion of the building is not seen raised before the Appellate Authority and, though raised, was rejected by the revisional authority. Nothing has been produced by the petitioner for interfering with the concurrent findings. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-