K. Ibrahim vs Tahsildar on 24 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2195 of 2005(J)


1. K. IBRAHIM, KOOLIKAD HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG.
                       ...       Respondent

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :24/10/2008

 O R D E R
                  C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  --------------------------------------------
                       W.P.C. NO. 2195 OF 2005
                  --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008

                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner is challenging demand of luxury tax under Section 5A

of the Kerala Building Tax Act for the building constructed by the

petitioner on the ground that construction of the building was

completed prior to 1.4.1999. However, appeal was rejected on account

of defect in the document filed along with appeal. Counsel for the

appellant contended that completion of the building was over prior to

1.4.1999 and Panchayath has issued certificate to that effect.

Government Pleader pointed out that this Court has taken the view that

Panchayath certificate is not conclusive evidence about the date of

completion of construction of the building. In fact it is seen that

Panchayath gives building number for the purpose of taking electricity

connection, water connection, etc., well in advance of full completion

of construction of the building. Therefore Panchayath records or

certificate issued by it cannot be taken as conclusive evidence on the

date of completion of construction of the building. However, if the

petitioner has taken regular electricity connection and has started using

power for the residential purpose, then the same will be a valuable

2

piece of evidence as proof of date of completion of construction of the

building. Government Pleader expressed a doubt that petitioner

himself has given the date of completion of the building in the return as

after 1.4.1999. If the petitioner has given the date of completion of

construction of the building in the return filed, then there is no scope

for giving opportunity to the petitioner to give evidence to the contrary.

However, if the date of completion of construction of the building is

not declared in the return, which is a matter to be verified by the

Tahsildar, I direct the Tahsildar to reconsider the evidence produced by

the petitioner such as details of electricity connection taken, first

electricity bill paid after petitioner started occupying the building,

invitation card for house-warming ceremony or any other piece of

evidence including details of payment of panchayat tax, etc. If

documents are produced as above, Tahsildar will reconsider the matter

and rectify the assessment by recalling the demand of luxury tax if

completion of construction of the building is proved to be on any date

prior to 1.4.1999.

W.P. is disposed of as above.

(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk

3