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