IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8177 of 2005(W)
1. T.L.OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR (ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :03/07/2008
O R D E R
C.R.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 8177 of 2005
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is challenging assessment and demand of building
tax in respect of a three storied building constructed by petitioner in
stages. The ground floor was constructed in 1993 and the first and
second floors were constructed only in the year 2003. When the
ground floor was assessed to building tax, petitioner contested the
same in appeal on the ground that the plinth area of a shed was also
added to the building. Learned Government Pleader submitted that
in appeal, the RDO remanded the matter and thereafter the
Tahsildar reduced the plinth area by 75 sq.m. i.e. by excluding the
plinth area of the shed, which was originally constructed for storage
of building materials like cement, steel, etc. When petitioner
constructed first and second floors in 2003, the Tahsildar assessed
the plinth area of the entire building gave rebate of tax paid for the
ground floor and demanded balance tax. It is against this order
petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that rate of tax
applied for the plinth area of the ground floor is not correct, in as
much as the rate of tax applied is not applicable and the plinth area
WP(C) No.8177/2005
-2-
now assessed is also more than the actual plinth area of the
building.
2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned
Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner’s challenge against the application of
same rate of tax on the entire plinth area of the building on the
ground that ground floor was constructed and assessed in 1993 is
not tenable because assessment is under Section 5(4) of the
Building Tax Act, which authorises new assessment as and when the
plinth area of an old building in extended. The scheme of the Act is
to make only one assessment for a building irrespective of the
stages of completion of construction of the building. Petitioner has
not disputed the fact that building completed by the petitioner is a
single unit and therefore there cannot be separate assessment for
each portion. Section 5(4) authorises assessment of entire plinth
area of the building as and when construction is completed and the
provision is to grant rebate of tax paid for any portion constructed
and assessed earlier. In this case, since petitioner constructed
ground floor of the building in 1993 and construction of first and
second floors are completed in 2003, the entire plinth area was
WP(C) No.8177/2005
-3-
rightly assessed in 2003 in terms of Section 5(4) of the Act and pet
tioner was given rebate of tax paid based on the original ass
ssment of the ground floor. Therefore, petitioner’s challenge aga
nst the assessment on this ground is not tenable.
4. So far as the dispute of plinth area is concerned, it is
seen that the plinth area assessed is after excluding the plinth area
of the shed. However, if petitioner still maintains that the plinth
area assessed is incorrect, it is for the petitioner to get the plinth
area of the building measured by an Engineer or any person familiar
with the matter and file a report before the Tahsildar. If petitioner’s
claim based on his measurement report varies with the assessment,
then there will be direction to the Tahsildar to get the plinth area
measured by Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD. However, if the
Asst. Executive Engineer on measurement finds that petitioner’s
claim is bogus and the original assessment is for the correct plinth
area, then the Tahsildar will, in addition to the demand of tax,
recover Rs.5,000/- towards cost from the petitioner.
5. Petitioner will produce copy of the judgment and
measurement report before the Tahsildar for follow up action, if
required. In case, if measurement by Asst. Executive Engineer,
WP(C) No.8177/2005
-4-
PWD, is required, then Tahsildar will get it done within two months
from the date of application along with a copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
jg