IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4436 of 2007(C)
1. K.N.CHANDRA BOSE, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SATHEESA BABU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.4436 OF 2007 (C)
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The issue raised in this writ petition challenging Exts.P2 and
P4 arises under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
2. It is stated that in 1995 petitioner constructed a single
storied residential building and in 2005 the first floor was also
constructed. On such construction, initially levied one time
building tax of 1800/-. This was revised and Rs.15,000/- was
levied on the petitioner. Further, proceeding on the basis that the
total plinth area of the building was 335.2 square meters, luxury
tax under Section 5A of the Act was also imposed.
3. In an appeal filed by the petitioner, Ext.P3 order was
passed confirming the levy of tax as above but with modification.
The revision was filed challenging only the levy of luxury tax.
The revision was rejected by Ext.P4. It is in these circumstances,
the writ petition is filed.
4. In so far as the levy of luxury tax is concerned, the
judgment as confirmed by Ext.P4 would show that the total plinth
area was only 327 square meters. In view of the judgment of the
WP(c).No.4436/07
:2 :
Division Bench of this court in Joy Joseph V. District Collector( 2009
(2) KLT 348), only the additionally constructed area can be
reckoned for levy of luxury tax and hence, necessarily the demand
for luxury tax calls for interference. Accordingly, the luxury tax
demanded from the petitioner and confirmed by Exts.P3 and P4 will
stand set aside. Although there was no challenge against the
building tax levied, still having regard the the fact that, at the
appellate stage, on resurvey conducted the area was found to be
only 327 square meters, that also has to be revised in terms of
Ext.P3 order. This the 4th respondent shall do and pass appropriate
orders in this behalf.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/