IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23816 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.J.SUNNY, S/O.THOMMAN JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PULICKAL HOUSE, VELLIYEPPILLY PO, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SMT.MERRY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,PALA, 3. THE THAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL, THALUK OFFICE, MEENACHIL, PALA. 4. THE DY.THAHSILDAR MEENACHIL(RR),. REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, MEENACHIL, PALA. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.23816 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The writ petition is filed challenging steps initiated under Exts.P1 and P8 notices for realisation of luxury tax assessed under the provisions of Section 5(A) of the Kerala Buildings Tax Act. It is revealed that the petitioner had filed appeal against the assessment before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P2 notice requiring the petitioner to deposit a portion of tax assessed which is a prerequisite for entertaining the appeal. Further through Ext.P2(a) proceedings the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal since the petitioner had failed to comply with the request. It is submitted that the petitioner had remitted the amount of Rs.2000/- being the luxury tax due for the year 2000-01 as evidenced by Ext.P6 receipt, subsequently. A revision petition filed by him challenging rejection of the appeal, before the 1st respondent was also rejected as time barred, through Ext.P7 proceedings. As evidenced from Ext.P8, now recovery proceedings is initiated for realisation of luxury tax amounting to Rs.14,000/- along with interest. Eventhough the petitioner had approached the 4th W.P.(C).23816/09 2 respondent requesting to keep in abeyance the recovery steps on the ground that the appeal petition was not disposed of on merits, the 4th respondent had refused to entertain such request, through Ext.P11, stating that unless the assessment is not set aside the recovery proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance. 2. From the facts revealed as above, it is evident that the petitioner had alrady exhausted all statutory remedies available against the assessment. This Court is not in a position to consider correctness of those orders since the appeal as well as the revision were not disposed of on merits. The contentions of the petitioner on merits of the case is that the building in question was completed prior to the appointed date of 1.4.1999 and hence he is not liable to pay Luxury Tax under Section 5(A) of the Act. It is for the petitioner to approach assessing authority concerned with such objections and make him convinced of the claim. Since the assessments already made stands completed and the statutory authorities had already rejected the appeal and the revision petition, this Court is not in a position to interfere with the recovery steps initiated. Hence the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 3. However it is made clear that the assessment of luxury tax under Section 5A is on an year-to-year basis. The W.P.(C).23816/09 3 petitioner is at liberty to object assessments of luxury tax with respect to the period subsequent to the assessment already completed by producing convincing evidence before the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, that the building in question was completed prior to 1.4.1999. If the petitioner files any representation in this regard before the 3rd respondent along with documents in support of such claim, the 3rd respondent shall consider and pass fresh orders with respect to the assessment of luxury tax for the further periods. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb