IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30438 of 2007(W)
1. GEORGE JOHN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR(ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :28/07/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 30438 OF 2007 W
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P4 and P5. Briefly put, the
case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner is the owner of building No.37/3845.
Completion of the construction of this building took place in
1994 and since then he is residing there with family. This
building is having an area of 180.70 M2. Thereafter, he put up
first floor as an independent building and this was completed in
the year 2000. The complaint is directed against the levy of
luxury tax in respect of the building. This was done clubbing
the construction made in the year 1994 with the construction
completed in the year 2000. According to petitioner, this is
impermissible. He also relies on a decision of this Court in
Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 149).
2. The contention taken by the respondents is that the
construction of the ground floor itself was not completed in the
WPC.30438/07 W 2
year 1994, but it was completed in the year 2000 and, therefore,
the dictum of the decision will not apply. A Reply Affidavit has
been filed by the petitioner wherein he has produced Exts.P6 to
P9 in support of the contention that the construction of the
ground floor was completed in the year 1994 and not in the year
2000 as contended by the respondents. I feel that the Authority
has to consider the question and ascertain whether the petitioner
had completed the construction of the ground floor prior to
1.4.1999. If it is found that the construction of the ground floor
was completed prior to 1.4.1999, then the Authority is duty
bound to consider the matter in the light of the decision of this
Court in Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 149).
Accordingly, Ext.P5 order is quashed and the third respondent is
directed to consider the matter in accordance with law, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as
aforesaid. The third respondent will consider whether the
petitioner had completed the construction of the ground floor in
the year 1994. If it is found that the construction was completed
WPC.30438/07 W 3
as contended by the petitioner, then the third respondent will
take a decision bearing in mind the decision of this Court in
Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 149). A
decision as aforesaid will be taken within six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.