Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Abdullakutty Mallikkan vs Assessing Authority on 15 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15487 of 2010(I)


1. ABDULLAKUTTY MALLIKKAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSESSING AUTHORITY,TAHSILDAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KANNUR.

3. TAHSILDAR,TALIPARAMBA.

4. VILLAGE OFFICER,TALIPARAMBA.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :15/06/2010

 O R D E R
                    P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                       W.P. (C) No. 15487 of 2010
                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 Dated, this the 15th day of June, 2010

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner constructed a residential building in the year, 2003

and the assessment of the ‘building tax’ under Section 5 was completed

fixing the liability as per Ext.P1, which in turn was satisfied by the

petitioner. Subsequently, in the year 2008, the petitioner provided a

aluminium roofing without any sidewall to protect the building from the

heat and rains. Pursuant to this, the assessing authority reopened the

assessment and accordingly, Ext.P3 fresh assessment order was

passed reckoning the aforesaid area of terrace also as forming part of

the ‘plinth area’, thus fixing the total building tax as Rs.12,600/-, besides

the liability to satisfy the ‘laxury tax’ under Section 5 (A), which in turn

is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the course

pursued by the respondents are per se illegal and contrary to the law

declared by this Court as per Ext. P6 verdict (Padmanabhan Vs.

State of Kerala 2009 (1) KLT 295)

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. Considering the fact that the liability to be satisfied in respect

of ‘terrace portion’, unsupported by any side walls stands answered in

W.P. (C) No. 15487 of 2010
: 2 :

favour of the assessee, as per the dictum laid down by this Court in the

decision cited supra., the question to be dealt with is whether the

petitioner is entitled to get the said benefit, which is matter to be

decided by the 3rd respondent in the light of law declared by this Court.

Accordingly, Ext.P3, Ext. P3 (a) and Ext.P8 are set aside. The third

respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after conducting a spot

inspection with prior notice to the petitioner and the proceedings as

above shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

94 queries in 0.894 seconds.