IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8823 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.M.MOHAMMED RASHAD,'FATHIMAS' PUTHIYATHERU,PANANKAVU ROAD, NEEROZHUKKUM CHAL, POST CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 8823 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th March , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had constructed a building for which the assessment was finalised with regard to the liability to pay 'building tax' under Section 5 as well as the liability to pay 'Luxury tax' under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act. It is admitted from the part of the petitioner that the above liability to satisfy the 'building tax' under Section 5 has been honoured and the liability to pay 'Luxury Tax' till the last year has already been satisfied, as borne by Exts.P3 /P3(a) receipts. The learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner has moved the first respondent by filing Ext. P4 dated 27.07.2009 for reconsidering the matter, in the light of the law declared by this Court as to the liability to pay the tax amount, mainly for the reason that the building was actually constructed by the petitioner before the appointed day i.e. 01.04.1999. Reliance is also placed on Ext.P1 'ownership certificate' and Ext.P6 reply issued by the concerned Grma Panchayat as to the completion of W.P.(C) No. 8823 OF 2010 2 construction prior to the appointed day. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. With regard to the liability to pay 'building tax' under Section 5, it has become final as the petitioner has not challenged the assessment order by filing any appeal and it is a one time affair. Unlike this, by virtue of the law declared by this Court, the liability to pay 'luxury tax' under Section 5A is a continuing cause of action and it can be subjected to challenge at any time, as and when the cause of action arises, as per the decision reported in 2006 (3) KLT 271 [ Mohammed Sadik vs. Tahsildar]. This being the position, the petitioner has got every right to challenge the proceedings taken by the first respondent for exemption of 'Luxury Tax' every year and the first respondent is liable to consider the matter with regard to future years. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P4 representation stated as filed by fhe petitioner has actually not been received and that if the petitioner files any such representation with regard to the future liability, the same will W.P.(C) No. 8823 OF 2010 3 be considered, in accordance with the law declared by this Court . 5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file a proper representation, if so advised, within two weeks and on such event, the same shall be considered on merits and appropriate orders shall be passed, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that till such orders are passed as above, no further recovery steps shall be pursued against the petitioner under any such circumstances. It is also made clear that the relief now granted will stand confined to the future liability and the amount already satisified will not be refunded under any circumstances. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk