IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 1687 of 2005(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- D. KUNJUMON, SANTHI BHAVAN, CHIRATTAKONAM, THALACHIRA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA-691 546. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.GEORGE G.POOTHICOTE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOTTARAKKARA. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VETTIKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.D.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.1687 OF 2005-A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.10.2004 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.3.2003 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 22.3.2003 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLINTH AREA MEASUREMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 21.3.2003 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 8.4.2003 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16.4.2003 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PTITIONER ON 5.8.2004 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.9.2004 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.11.2004 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.11.2004 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.1.2005 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT / TRUE COPY / HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1687 of 2005-A ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 assessment order, Ext.P9 appellate order and Ext.P11 revisional order are under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner also prayed to declare that petitioner is not liable to pay luxury tax as the construction of the residential building was completed as early as in the year 1998. Petitioner also contended that the plinth area of the building is only 352.11 sq.mts. as against 416.69 sq.mts. assessed by the Tahsildar. 2. In the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, this court issued an interim direction to the Tahsildar to measure the plinth area of the building in the presence of the petitioner and file a report. There was a further direction to the Tahsildar to report the reasons that justify the demand of luxury tax from the petitioner and also to report the date of completion of the building. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Tahsildar submitted a report dated 7th February, 2005. The inspection and measurement was done in the presence of W.P.(C) No.1687 of 2005 2 the petitioner. The Tahsildar reported that the plinth area of the building is 416.69 sq.mts. In the original assessment on the basis of the measurement done by the Village Officer in the year 2002 also, the plinth area assessed is 416.69 sq.mts. The Village Officer originally reported that the building was completed during May, 2002 and the building was occupied by the petitioner on 27.5.2002. Finding that the petitioner did not file any return and that he had started occupation of the building, the Village Officer issued notice under Section 9(2) of the Kerla Building Tax Act. Pursuant to the notice the petitioner appeared and contended that the plinth area assessed is not correct. The Village Officer also reported that the petitioner has not raised any objection against the date of completion or occupation of the building. The re-measurement was made and enquiry was conducted solely to redress the grievance of the petitioner. After inspection and measurement, the authorities found that the plinth area of the building is the same and that the petitioner has started occupation of the building in the year 2002, and therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are unsustainable. The building in question comes under the purview of the luxury tax and, therefore, the imposition of W.P.(C) No.1687 of 2005 3 luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act is correct. I find no reason to interfere with the orders under challenge. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE vns