IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38074 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THOMAS M.V., S/O. LATE VARKEY, MYKULANGARA HOUSE, KINGINIMATTOM P.O., KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. R.D.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKKARANADU SOUTH, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DIST. 5. POOTHRIKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POOTHRIKA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 308. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==================== W.P.(C) NO. 38074 OF 2007 G =========================== Dated this the 5 th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P2, P9 and P10 orders. Petitioner also seeks a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay luxury tax in respect of building No.115A-III of Poothrika Panchayat. 2. From the facts narrated in this writ petition, it would appear that according to the petitioner, he obtained title in respect of the land and the building mentioned above from his father as per settlement deed No.173 dated 21/1/1976. It is stated by the petitioner that in 1996, he had reconstructed the building and completed the same in 1998. According to the petitioner, thereafter the building was assessed to building tax and tax was also paid. In September, 2000, petitioner submits that some maintenance works were done and thereafter on 24/1/2001, the 4 th respondent assessed WPC No.38074/07 :2 : the building tax on the premise that the building was constructed after 01/04/1999. Petitioner submits that although the assessment to building tax was erroneous, still the tax demanded was paid. An appeal was filed against Ext.P2 order of assessment and that was rejected by Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent. In the meantime, based on Ext.P2 order of assessment to building tax, luxury tax was also levied on the petitioner. Petitioner disputed the plinth area and the finding on the date of construction of the building by filing OP Nos. 32822/02 and 38950/02. These cases were disposed of directing reconsideration of the contention of the petitioner regarding the plinth area and the date of construction. Petitioner was also allowed to produce evidence in support of his contentions. However, by Ext.P5 order, the contentions raised by the petitioner were rejected and the petitioner was held to be liable to pay luxury tax. An appeal was filed and that was also disposed of by the 2nd respondent by order dated 22/2/2005 directing the 3rd respondent to take a fresh decision in the matter. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had produced Exts. P6 to P8. Despite this, by Ext.P9 order, the 3rd respondent ordered that the WPC No.38074/07 :3 : petitioner is liable to pay luxury tax. Petitioner pursued the matter in appeal to the 2nd respondent and that also met with rejection by Ext.P10 order dated 10/5/2007. Explaining that the records were misplaced and could be traced out only during the 3rd week of December, 2007, that this writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 19/12/2007 seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Having heard both the arguments made by respective sides, I am not able to accept the contention raised by the petitioner. This is for the primary reason that although it is the contention of the petitioner that the levy of building tax by Ext.P2 order was erroneous, the fact remains that the appeal filed against the said order was rejected by Ext.P4. Even thereafter, although the petitioner raised disputes regarding the plinth area of the building, there also the petitioner did not succeed. Thus the levy of building tax by Ext.P2 stood confirmed by Ext.P4 order. After Ext.P4, there has been no dispute about the levy of building tax. If that be the position, the levy WPC No.38074/07 :4 : of luxury tax based on the assessment of plinth area for the purpose of building tax, which has become final, cannot be upset. Therefore, Exts. P9 and P10 orders cannot be interfered with. 5. It is true that the petitioner has sought to quash Ext.P2 order as well. But having regard to the fact that this order was confirmed in Ext.P4 and that after Ext.P4, petitioner did not pursue the matter any further and this levy has become final. For this reason, Ext.P2 order cannot be subjected to challenge, at any rate, at this distance of time. That apart, I do not find any material at all, to upset the concurrent findings rendered by the authorities under the Kerala Building Tax Act levying building tax as also the luxury tax. For these reasons, the writ petition merits only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE Rp