IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 10667 of 2003(T) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.D.SKARIACHAN, AGED 62, S/O. P.K.DEVASIA, 'SWAPNA', CHERUPILLY ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. MRS.MARY SKARIACHAN, W/O. K.S.SKARIACHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, 'SWAPANA', CHERUPILLY ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. 3. PAUL JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. K.P.JOSEPH, 'SWAPANA', CHERUPILLY ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH JOSE(NARIKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT, SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.18367/2003 IN O.P.NO.10667/2003 CLOSED SD/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 07/01/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED AS PER THE DOCUMENT NO.2555/1/2000 DATED 09/06/2000 AT SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 10/07/2000, DOCUMENT NO.3055/1/2000 AT SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17/03/2002 FOR RS.8,000/- EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/03/2003. \\TRUE COPY// C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O.P.No. 10667 of 2003 (T) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging demand of luxury tax with respect to a building before completing its construction. Even though petitioners have stated in the O.P that building was sold to one Dr.Balachandran and his family, even before completion of construction, it is seen that petitioners themselves have filed return, declaring plinth area and date of completion of construction of building as 27/04/2000. Even in this O.P petitioners have not made purchasers as parties. Since petitioners have filed return on completion of construction, building tax including luxury tax have to be recovered from the petitioners. Moreover, building tax is a charge on the building and, even if it is sold, recovery of tax can be made by attachment and sale of the building, Sec. 19(2) of the Building Tax Act. Even if building is sold, the petitioners are liable to pay the tax/luxury tax until date of the sale and thereafter, luxury tax being a charge on building, has to be recovered from the purchasers. Respondents will proceed for recovery of liability against petitioners and purchasers as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms O.P.No. 10667 of 2003 (T) -: 2 :- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O.P.No. 10667 of 2003 (T) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J U D G M E N T 7th day of January, 2008