IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 OP.No. 4190 of 2001(W) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.POPULAR AUTOMOBILES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR.JOHN K. PAUL, COCHIN-682 025. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.6890/2001 IN O.P. NO.4190/2001 DISMISSED: 16.7.2009 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.31.3.1993 ISSUED BY R1. P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.19.2.98 IN O.P. NO.21137/97 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P3: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DT.8.12.98 ISSUED BY R1. P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.9.2.99 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.301/1999 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN THE O.P. PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.5.9.2000 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. P6: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.8.12.2000 OF R3 DISMISSING EXT.P6 PETITION. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.4190 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The O.P. is filed challenging Ext.P3 proceedings issued by the Tahsildar raising the original building tax assessment in respect of petitioner's building from Rs.1,40,378/- to Rs.5,43,600/-. The original assessment namely, Ext.P1 was revised under Section 15(1) to revise the tax levied based on plinth area as against capital value method originally adopted. However, in the revised assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that there has been increase in the plinth area of the building from the original assessment. Therefore, actual plinth area of 3170 sq. metres was assessed under the plinth area method demanding additional tax of Rs.4,03,222/-. Even though petitioner challenged the said order in appeal, the same was unsuccessful. Thereafter revision was filed before the District Collector who dismissed the same vide Ext.P7. It is against these orders, the petitioner has filed this O.P. 2. The challenge against revised assessment on the ground that proceedings under Section 15(1) is not maintainable cannot be accepted because that matter is settled in the first round of litigation vide Ext.P2 2 judgment of this court confirmed in appeal. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that there is no modification of the building extending the plinth area. I do not think this contention is tenable because plinth area was measured during first assessment and it was again measured in re- assessment proceeding when it was found that the original plinth area of 2800 and odd metres was increased to 3170 sq. metres which obviously means that there was additional construction extending the plinth area. Section 5(4) of the Building Tax Act authorises assessment of additional plinth area and the method provided is to determine tax for the entire plinth area of the modified building, give credit for the tax paid in the original assessment and demand the difference. This is what is exactly done by the Tahsildar vide Ext.P3. I do not find any justification to interfere with Ext.P3 confirmed in appeal and revision. It is seen from Ext.P6 that petitioner has paid total of Rs.2,71,800/- and the balance is equal amount which the petitioner is bound to pay. W.P.(C) is devoid of any merits and is dismissed leaving freedom to the respondents to recover the actual balance tax arrears with interest thereon due from the petitioner. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms