IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 4436 of 2007(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.N.CHANDRA BOSE, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. NARENDRAN, KODAKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.THANNYAM, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.A.SATHEESA BABU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (REVENUE), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR. SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER VINOD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 4436/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24.11.05 BY THE 4HT RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24.11.05 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 17.6.06 BY 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER DTD. 18.1.07 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.4436 OF 2007 (C) ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The issue raised in this writ petition challenging Exts.P2 and P4 arises under the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. It is stated that in 1995 petitioner constructed a single storied residential building and in 2005 the first floor was also constructed. On such construction, initially levied one time building tax of 1800/-. This was revised and Rs.15,000/- was levied on the petitioner. Further, proceeding on the basis that the total plinth area of the building was 335.2 square meters, luxury tax under Section 5A of the Act was also imposed. 3. In an appeal filed by the petitioner, Ext.P3 order was passed confirming the levy of tax as above but with modification. The revision was filed challenging only the levy of luxury tax. The revision was rejected by Ext.P4. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 4. In so far as the levy of luxury tax is concerned, the judgment as confirmed by Ext.P4 would show that the total plinth area was only 327 square meters. In view of the judgment of the WP(c).No.4436/07 :2 : Division Bench of this court in Joy Joseph V. District Collector( 2009 (2) KLT 348), only the additionally constructed area can be reckoned for levy of luxury tax and hence, necessarily the demand for luxury tax calls for interference. Accordingly, the luxury tax demanded from the petitioner and confirmed by Exts.P3 and P4 will stand set aside. Although there was no challenge against the building tax levied, still having regard the the fact that, at the appellate stage, on resurvey conducted the area was found to be only 327 square meters, that also has to be revised in terms of Ext.P3 order. This the 4th respondent shall do and pass appropriate orders in this behalf. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/