IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 10982 of 2008(G) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SMT.K.S.SAFIYA, W/O.MUAHAMAD, UNDAPARAMBU, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THALASSERY. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, THALIPARAMABA, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO.10982 OF 2008 G PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 8(1) OF THE BUILDING TAX ACT BY THE SECOND RESPONSDENT DATED 15.9.2004. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE BUILDING. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 6.9.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.9.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR. // TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 10982 OF 2008 G -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner constructed a house. It measures 286.38 Sq. Metres. Petitioner came to be assessed to luxury tax by Ext.P1 dated 15.9.2004. The second respondent, according to petitioner, included the car parking area. Ext.P2 is the plan. Petitioner preferred Ext.P3 Appeal which was dismissed by Ext.P4 on the ground of delay. The main contention taken by the petitioner is that going by the decision of this Court in Jayakumar v. State of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 34), the plinth area of the garage cannot be taken into account for determining the plinth area of the building. It is also submitted that there can be no res judicata also in the matter of challenge to the levy of luxury tax every year. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. A Statement is filed producing a sketch by the Deputy Tahsildar. There is no mention whether there was a garage or not. Anyway, going by the decision of this Court, the portion of WPC.10982/08 G 2 the garage has to be excluded. Levy of luxury tax is a recurring liability. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 is quashed, so that the matter can be reconsidered. The second respondent will afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a decision in the matter, taking note of the decision of this Court in Jayakumar v. State of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 34). He may also conduct a re-measurement and ascertain whether there is a garage and what is the area of the garage. A decision shall be taken only after hearing the petitioner, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. There shall be no further demand for luxury tax until a decision is taken as aforesaid. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.