IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27905 of 2004(V)
1. KURIAKOSE, S/O.CHERIAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA.
... Respondent
2. PAMPAKKUDA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.O.XAVIER
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :26/09/2008
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 27905 OF 2004
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging demand of luxury tax in respect of a
residential building. The specific case of the petitioner is that car porch
is not only used for parking cars but also used for agricultural
operations during harvest season and consequently this area should be
excluded from the total plinth area of the building. This Court has
taken the view that plinth area of car porch should be excluded for the
purpose of building tax assessment. The total plinth area assessed is
291.11 sq.metres which obviously attracts luxury tax. However,
petitioner’s case is that plinth area of car porch is 22 sq.metres and if
this area is excluded, petitioner’s building will be outside the scope of
Section 5A of the Building Tax Act. Petitioner is directed to get a
sketch prepared by a qualified person and produce the same before the
first respondent and if the sketch shows that plinth excluding car porch
is less than 278.7 sq. metres, then he will personally verify the area and
get the plinth area measured again and on verification if plinth area is
2
found to be less than 278.7 sq. metres, he will recall the demand of
luxury tax. On the other hand, if the plinth area is 278.7 sq.metres and
above luxury tax can be recovered from the petitioner. I make it clear
that covered verandahs form part of plinth area and should be included
in the plinth area of the building.
W.P. is disposed of as above.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk
3