IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34686 of 2009(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.KASIM HAJI KOMBATHEEL HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34686 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge is against Ext.P4 and P6 orders through which appeal and subsequent revision filed against assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act were rejected. The assessment in question was completed as early as in the year 2002. The petitioner had submitted an appeal before the 2nd respondent only in the year 2009. Through Ext.P4 the appeal was rejected observing that the 2nd respondent is not empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal for a period beyond six months, under Section 11 of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Against Ext.P4 the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent, who is the revisional authority, which was also rejected as per Ext.P6 holding that the appeal could not be entertained by the appellate authority. 2. I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P4 and P6. On going by provisions contained in Section 11 it is clear that there is limitation prescribed for condonation of delay. Hence the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are correct and justified in rejecting the appeal and the revision. 3. In this case the Building Tax is assessed reckoning the W.P.(C).34686/09-E 2 plinth area 285.22 Sq:Mt:. Luxury tax under Section 5A was also imposed on that basis. According to the petitioner, the building is having a plinth area of only 270.525 Sq: Mt:. Therefore it is contended that the building in question is not liable to be assessed under Section 5A. Therefore the petitioner is seeking permission to challenge assessment of Luxury Tax under Section 5A, if any made for the subsequent years, on the above ground. The petitioner is relying on a decision of this court in Mohamad Sadik Vs. Tahsildar (2006 (3) KLT 271) to contend that the payment of Luxury Tax if any made cannot be treated as a bar to challenge demand for Luxury Tax for the future years since the liability arose on an year to year basis. I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be given opportunity to challenge future assessment of Luxury Tax under Section 5A on the basis of his contentions as stated above. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider challenge if any made by the petitioner with respect to liability for payment of Luxury Tax under Section 5A, before finalising assessment or demand with respect to the building in question for any future years. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb