IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 32151 of 2010(T) PETITIONER: THRISSUR METROPOLITAN HEALTH CARE(PVT.), THRISSUR-7, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR.K.SANKARANKUTTY, S/O V.B.MENON,'SHALINI', POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-4. BY ADV. SRI. JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR-01. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-01. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR-01. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 32151 of 2010(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G2 31497/05 DATED 11.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 51 BOOK NO. 673 IN C5-BT 3002/86 DATED 29.12.1994 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF THE 1ST INSTALLMENT OF BUILDING TAX. P3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 04.12.2009, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C1-17375/09/K DIAS DATED 22.2.2010 ISSUED BY the 2ND RESPONDENT P5: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 25.03.2010 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G8-19083/10 DATED 31.07.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 32151 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner constructed a hospital building 27 years ago. The building was assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building-tax Act, 1975 during the year 1986. In the year 2005, the petitioner constructed three more flats to the building, which is after the amendment of the Kerala Building-tax Act, as per which the assessment was changed from capital value to plinth area basis. The construction was also after the appointed day fixed as per the amendment for the purpose of assessment. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the additional construction has to be assessed under Section 5(3) of the Kerala Building-tax Act separately. Instead, the 3rd respondent assessed the same under Section 5(4) by assessing the whole building and deducting the building tax paid in respect of the original building. The petitioner's appeal and revision have been rejected. The petitioner is challenging the original, appellate and revisional orders, which are Exts. P1, P4 and P6. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent justifying the impugned orders. But, that counter affidavit does not specifically deal with the contention of the petitioner that the assessment should have been under Section 5 (3) and not under Section 5(4). 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act reads as follows: W.P(C) No. 32151 of 2010 -: 2 :- “5. Charge of building tax:- (1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx (3) Where any major repair or improvement is made on or after the appointed day to a building constructed before the said date building tax shall be payable at the rate referred to in sub-section (1) on the additional plinth area of the building resulting from such repair or improvement. (4) Where the plinth area of the building, the construction of which is completed after the appointed day is subsequently increased by new extensions or major repair or improvement, building tax shall be computed on the total plinth area of the building including that of the new extension or repair or improvement and credit shall be given to the tax already levied and collected, if any, in respect of the building before such extension, or repair or improvement.” Admittedly, the additional construction is after the appointed day fixed in the Amendment Act. That being so, the 3rd respondent could have assessed the building only under Section 5(3) and not under Section 5(4), which has been done in this case. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to re-do the assessment in respect of the additional construction made by the petitioner as per Section 5(3). The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/