IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32412 of 2005(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PHILIP JOHN, PANAVELIL HOUSE, KARIKULAM P.O., PAZHAVANGADI, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, PAZHAVANGADI RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: NOTICE OF DEMAND DT.16.1.2001. P2 SERIES: RECEIPT OF PAYMENT. P3: PROCEEDINGS OF R1 DT.2.5.2002. P4: OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER DT.10.6.02. P5: POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DT.13.6.02. P6: OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DT.14.10.05. P7: CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PANCHAYAT DT.13.8.04. P8: R.R. NOTICE DT.5.10.05. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.32412 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging demand of luxury tax in respect of his residential building, the assessed plinth area of which is 433.4 sq. metres. The petitioner has paid the building tax without any dispute. Liability for luxury tax will be there, if completion of construction of the building was on any day after 1.4.1999. It is not on record when petitioner completed construction of the building. According to the petitioner, no return was filed by him and therefore, there is no ground for the Tahsildar to assume that construction of the building was completed before 1.4.1999. The petitioner's case is that Panchayat has issued Exts.P6 and P7 which show payment of building tax from 1998-1999 onwards. However, it is seen that Exts.P6 and P7 are obtained only in 2004-2005. This court has taken the view that Panchayat records pertaining to payment of tax is not conclusive evidence about date of completion of construction because in many cases building is numbered by the Panchayat before completion of construction for the purpose of applying for electricity connection, water connection etc. The petitioner has to produce independent evidence about completion of 2 construction which can be in the form of deposit for taking electric connection, first electricity bill paid after connection is taken, water connection taken, details of proof of house warming ceremony held, details of payment made towards expenditure for completion of construction of building etc. The W.P. is therefore disposed of directing the petitioner to produce independent evidence before the Tahsildar for him to consider and decide about the date of completion of construction of the building, if assessment was initiated without petitioner filing any return. If the building is found to be constructed before 1.4.1999, then there will be direction to the Tahsildar to withdraw the demand of luxury tax. On the other hand if the Tahsildar on enquiry finds that the petitioner constructed the building after 1.4.1999, he will levy luxury tax through a speaking adjudication order and demand the same after hearing the petitioner. The Tahsildar is directed to pass orders within three months from now. Recovery proceedings will remain stayed for three months from now and thereafter recovery will be continued based on orders of the Tahsildar as stated above. If petitioner does not produce proof of completion of construction of the building before the Tahsildar and co-operate with the enquiry, the Tahsildar can proceed with recovery based on present orders. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms