IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28841 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.KRISHNAN, S/O.KELU, AGED 63, RADHA NILAYAM, VILLIAPPALLI, BADAGARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 28841 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was assessed to building tax and luxury tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act in respect of his residential building. Originally, the plinth area was accepted as per the plan of the building approved by the local authority as 293.22 sq. meters. This plinth area, according to the petitioner, included areas exempted from computation of building tax like area used for stocking firewood and area covered by garage for car parking which totals to 26.04 sq. meters. According to the petitioner, if that area is also excluded, the total area would be within the limits to exclude luxury tax. However, the assessing authority took the stand that the total plinth area is 304.21 sq. meters and demanded both building tax and luxury tax accordingly. The petitioner filed an appeal against Ext. P1 assessment order, which was rejected by Ext. P3 order, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and without considering the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that Ext. P3 order itself is violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore the petitioner filed an application for rectification of the assessment, which also has been rejected by Ext. P5 order, without hearing the petitioner. According to the petitioner, if a proper measurement is made and the area covered by the garage and the area used for stocking firewood are excluded, the petitioner would not be liable to pay luxury tax. 2. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of the contentions of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the contentions of both sides. 4. Since the only dispute in this case is regarding the area of the petitioner's building and the area covered by the garage and area W.P.C. No. 28841/2009. -: 2 :- for stocking firewood, I feel that the same can be resolved if the 2nd respondent conducts a joint inspection with the petitioner for measuring the plinth area and considers the claim of the petitioner for exemption on the basis of the documents to be produced by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: Exts.P1, P3 and P5 are quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to re-measure the building in the presence of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard, which shall include opportunity to adduce evidence also. In the hearing, the 2nd respondent shall consider the matter with reference to the claim for exemption made by the petitioner in respect of the garage for car parking and the area used for stocking firewood. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.