IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30191 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MUHAMMED @ PAPPA, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, MOOCHIKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, THRIKKATIRI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM-679101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM-679101. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKATIRI-I VILLAGE, PIN-679 502. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE AND TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 30191/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL KDS 2139/07/AH DATED 8.2.2011 ISSUED BY R.D.O. OTTAPALAM. EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN REVISION B1-2011/19185/9 DATED 16.6.2011 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 31.10.2011 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.09.2004 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2004 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN APPEAL. EXT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN DATED 07.03.2011 OF THE BUILDING PREPARED BY QUALIFIED ENGINEER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30191 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was assessed to building tax and luxury tax in respect of a building of the petitioner, by Ext.P4 order dated 13.9.2004. The petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal before the Sub Collector, Ottappalam, who dismissed the appeal by order dated 17.11.2004. The petitioner did not take up the matter further. On 5.6.2007, the petitioner filed another appeal against Ext.P4 order. By Ext.P1 order dated 8.2.2011, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam, dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against Ext.P4 order, which was dismissed by Ext.P5 order and, therefore, the petitioner cannot file another appeal on the same cause of action. Against the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the District Collector, which was dismissed by Ext.P2 order dated 16.6.2011 on the ground that the same is not maintainable under Sections 11(3) and 13(3) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the revision has been dismissed on the ground of delay and there is no delay, since Ext.P1 order has been challenged before the District Collector within the time stipulated. w.p.c.30191/11 - : 2 :- 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He supports the orders passed on the reasoning in Ext.P1 order. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As far as the question of building tax is concerned, the petitioner's remedy has become barred by res judicata in view of Ext.P5 order, which the petitioner has not chosen to challenge further. But still the petitioner has a right to challenge the demand for luxury tax for the current year in view of the decision of this Court in Mohamad Sadik v. Tahsildar, 2006(3) KLT, 271, insofar as the luxury tax is a recurring tax every year and there is no estoppal in taxation matters. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the demand for luxury tax, if any, made for this year. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge