IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6560 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BENEDICT THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, PUTHIRY HOUSE, VELUR P.O., VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6560 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondents fixing the liability to pay luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Essentially, the prayer is to direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation causing a fresh measurement of the petitioner's residential building and to pass appropriate orders thereon. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the fact that the cause of action with regard to the liability to pay luxury tax under Section 5A of the said Act is a recurring one by virtue of the law declared by this Court as per the decision reported in Mohamad Sadik v. Tahsildar (2006 (3) KLT 271) and also considering the fact that W.P.(C) No.6560 of 2010 - 2 - the area occupied by the garage is liable to be excluded from the purview of plinth area by virtue of the decision reported in Subhashchandrababu v. State of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 189), this Court finds that the matter can be finalized by directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 representation with regard to the future liability of the petitioner in respect of luxury tax. 4. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 representation filed by the petitioner as to the liability to pay luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act and pass appropriate orders thereon after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the benefit, if any, to be provided on passing orders on Ext.P3 shall stand confined only to the future liability W.P.(C) No.6560 of 2010 - 3 - of the petitioner and that the petitioner will not be entitled to claim any refund in respect of the past transaction. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns