High Court Kerala High Court

K.K.Subramanyan vs State Of Kerala on 11 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.K.Subramanyan vs State Of Kerala on 11 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11420 of 2004(H)


1. K.K.SUBRAMANYAN, S/O. KUMARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR,

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VIJAYAN MANNALY

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :11/07/2007

 O R D E R
             THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J
            =======================
                    W.P.(C).No.11420 of 2004
              =======================
                Dated this the 11th day of July, 2007


                            JUDGMENT

The issue arising for a decision is as to whether the

petitioner is liable to pay luxury tax under the Kerala Building

Tax Act, 1975 for the building in question. To decide this issue,

the plinth area of building has to be calculated without including

the plinth area of the garage portion. While the counter affidavit

disclose certain measurements, those details are not available

from the impugned order. Following a first order of remand

issued by the District Collector, the plinth area of the building

which was originally determined as 300.4m2 was reduced to

294.68m2 . If the case of the petitioner is that the garage has a

plinth area of 17.03m2 is accepted and deduction made

accordingly, the assessable plinth area will be only 277.65m2,

which would less than the bench mark of 278.7 m2 for imposing

luxury tax. However in the absence of data in the statutory

orders, I do not venture to proceed on the merits and decide the

matter finally on the basis of contesting contentions as to the

plinths. Hence, the impugned orders, in so far as they imposes

W.P.(C).No.11420 of 2004

2

luxury tax, is set aside and the Tahasildar is directed to re-

measure the building to determine the plinth area excluding the

garage area and issue assessment orders afresh, as regards

luxury tax. If the Tahasildar takes the view that luxury tax is

payable, the order shall contain the reasons and the determined

plinth area of the entire building including the garage area and

also the separate measurement of the plinth area of the garage.

Any payment made by the petitioner in obedience to the interim

order in this case shall be dealt with either by making refund or

by adjustment, as the case may be, in terms of such decision. Let

the aforesaid be done within a period of four months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and compliance

promptly reported by the Tahasildar to the Registrar General of

this Court.

Writ petition is allowed as above.

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

dvs