IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12598 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MUKRINAKATH HAMZA HAJI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. MAMMAD HAJI, `SABIRA MANZIL', VILACODE.P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.V.VENUGOPAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUZHAKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 12598 of 2010-Y ---------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The building constructed by the petitioner was assessed for 'Building Tax' and 'Luxury Tax' as provided under Section 5 and 5A respectively of the Kerala Building Tax Act, fixing the total plinth area as 278.78, pursuant to which the liability was satisfied by the petitioner. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the plinth area was calculated in a wrong manner and hence, notwithstanding satisfaction of the liability, the issue was brought to the notice of the first respondent to consider the matter, who issued Ext.P5 conceding that there was a mistake on the part of the concerned Village Officer in fixing the plinth area ; however stating that this could not be a ground to interfere with the matter after a lapse of nearly three years. The petitioner has preferred a further representation as borne by Ext.P6, before the very same respondent, referring to law declared by this Court in Mohamad Sadik V. Tahsildar (2006(3) KLT 271); seeking to reconsider the matter. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. W.P(C) No. 12598 of 2010-Y 2 4. Going by the dictum laid down by this Court, it is very much clear that, unlike the question of 'Building Tax', the liability to satisfy the 'Luxury Tax' under Section 5A gives rise to the cause of action every year, as the liability is a continuing one. This being the position, the petitioner is entitled to have reckoned the actual plinth area, in respect of the current year. 5. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders in respect of the liability of the petitioner to satisfy the 'Luxury Tax' for the current year onwards; after giving an opportunity of hearing, 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 amount already satisfied by the petitioner is liable to be refunded under any circumstances and the benefit of this verdict will stand confined to the liability in respect of the current/future years. It is also made clear that no further revenue recovery proceedings shall be pursued against the petitioner, till the matter is finalized as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab