IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11015 of 2005(J)
1. LAZAR, S/O. JOHN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR.
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :28/08/2008
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.11015 OF 2005
----------------------------
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST,2008
JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 is a notice issued under Section 5A of the Kerala Building
Tax Act, 1975 demanding an amount of Rs.10,000/- being the luxury tax
said to be due for the period from 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2004. The plinth area
of the building is shown as 286.95 sq. metres. According to the petitioner,
the building was completed as early as in 1997. He relied on Ext.P2
certificate issued by the Thrissur Municipality certifying that he had been
assessed to building tax from 1-4-1997. He also submits that Ext.P2 was
produced before the lst respondent’s office to prove that he is not liable to
pay luxury tax. It is seen that the Tahsildar has acknowledged receipt of the
said certificate (Ext.P2) dated 20/3/2003 produced in this case. But he did
not pass any order. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Evidently, the construction of the building was completed prior to 1-4-
1999. 1-4-1999 is a cut of date for the purpose of assessability to luxury
tax under the Act. Based on the documents produced in this writ petition
namely, Exts.P2, P3 and P4, there is force in the contention of the petitioner
that the construction of the building was completed long prior to 1999. If
-2-
WP(C).No.11015/2005
so, he is not liable to be assessed for the purpose of luxury tax. Further
no orders are passed before issuing the notice of demand. So, it has to be
held that the petitioner is denied an opportunity of being heard. In the
absence of any assessment order, they could not proceed with the demand.
In these circumstances, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against
the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 demand is quashed.
Writ Petition is allowed.
P.R.RAMAN,
Judge.
kcv.