IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1839 of 2008(R)
1. P.P.MAMMU, S/O SOOPPY, AGED 53,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE THAHSILDAR,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE RDO,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/03/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= =W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = =
= = =
No. 1839 OF 2008 R
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th March, 2008
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition the dispute is regarding the liability of the
petitioner to pay luxury tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
While proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the
allegation that the building has an area of 278.7 sq.m. and that the
completion of the building was subsequent to 1.4.1999, petitioner
contends that the area is only 223.23 sq.m. and that the building
was completed as early as on 17.10.1997. Overruling his objection
by Ext. P7 luxury tax was levied on him. His appeal and revision
were all rejected and that is the background in which this writ
petition has been filed.
2. Evidently, therefore what is required to be ascertained is
regarding the exact plinth area of the building and also its date of
completion. For ascertaining these factual matters, in my view the
1st respondent is the most competent authority. Therefore, I direct
that the 1st respondent shall ascertain the exact plinth area of the
W.P.(C) No. 1839 OF 2008 -2-
building and also its date of completion and thereafter fresh orders
in this matter shall be passed. In order to enable the 1st
respondent to do so, Exts. P7, P12, P15 and P16 will stand quashed.
The writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st
respondent shall re-consider the matter with particular reference to
the exact plinth area and also the date of completion of the building
in question. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this
judgment and with notice to the petitioner. Needless to say that
appropriation of the amount made will depend upon the revised
orders to be passed and if the petitioner is ultimately found to be
having no liability to pay luxury tax the amount paid in this behalf
will be refunded to him.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-