IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8448 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RAJINI. P.C, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, CHERUMANALIL HOUSE, PALLIKULAM, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN, MR.V.VENUGOPAL. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.8448 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 15th day of March 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondents, seeking to realise the luxury tax in respect of the building, which is in the name of the son of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that, it has been declared by this Court, holding that the area of 'car porch' as well as the 'terrace' without side walls are liable to be excluded for reckoning the plinth area, applicable under Section 2(k) of the Act, whereas the proceeding have been finalised by the 1st respondent, without any regard to the same. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the luxury tax under Section 5A, in respect of which, Ext.P7 representation has already been preferred before the 1st respondent and it is without taking any corrective W.P.(C).No.8448 of 2010 2 measures, that coercive steps are being pursued and hence under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Unlike the liability to satisfy the tax, under Section 5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, which is a 'one time' affair, liability to pay luxury tax under Section 5A stands entirely on a different footing as, the cause of action arises every year and the aggrieved person is entitled to have it challenged, as and when the cause of action arises. The legal position in this regard has been clearly laid out by the decision in Mohamad Sadik v. Tahsildar [2006 (3) KLT 271]. This being the position, the 1st respondent is liable to consider the case projected by the petitioner, with regard to the liability to pay the luxury tax under Section 5A, in respect of the current year onwards. 4. In the above circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, also W.P.(C).No.8448 of 2010 3 taking note of the dictum in the decision stated above and of course after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is made clear that, till such orders are passed on Ext.P7, all further recovery steps as stated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is further made clear that the rights of the petitioner shall stand confined only with regard to liability to pay luxury tax from the current year onwards and that the amount, if any, satisfied with regard to the previous years will not be refunded under any circumstances. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl