IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23816 of 2009(V)
1. P.J.SUNNY, S/O.THOMMAN JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE THASILDAR, MEENACHIL,
4. THE DY.THASILDAR MEENACHIL(RR),.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :10/09/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.23816 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. The writ petition is filed challenging steps initiated
under Exts.P1 and P8 notices for realisation of luxury tax
assessed under the provisions of Section 5(A) of the Kerala
Buildings Tax Act. It is revealed that the petitioner had filed
appeal against the assessment before the 2nd respondent and the
2nd respondent had issued Ext.P2 notice requiring the petitioner
to deposit a portion of tax assessed which is a prerequisite for
entertaining the appeal. Further through Ext.P2(a) proceedings
the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal since the petitioner had
failed to comply with the request. It is submitted that the
petitioner had remitted the amount of Rs.2000/- being the luxury
tax due for the year 2000-01 as evidenced by Ext.P6 receipt,
subsequently. A revision petition filed by him challenging
rejection of the appeal, before the 1st respondent was also
rejected as time barred, through Ext.P7 proceedings. As
evidenced from Ext.P8, now recovery proceedings is initiated for
realisation of luxury tax amounting to Rs.14,000/- along with
interest. Eventhough the petitioner had approached the 4th
W.P.(C).23816/09 2
respondent requesting to keep in abeyance the recovery steps on
the ground that the appeal petition was not disposed of on
merits, the 4th respondent had refused to entertain such request,
through Ext.P11, stating that unless the assessment is not set
aside the recovery proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance.
2. From the facts revealed as above, it is evident that the
petitioner had alrady exhausted all statutory remedies available
against the assessment. This Court is not in a position to
consider correctness of those orders since the appeal as well as
the revision were not disposed of on merits. The contentions of
the petitioner on merits of the case is that the building in
question was completed prior to the appointed date of 1.4.1999
and hence he is not liable to pay Luxury Tax under Section 5(A)
of the Act. It is for the petitioner to approach assessing
authority concerned with such objections and make him
convinced of the claim. Since the assessments already made
stands completed and the statutory authorities had already
rejected the appeal and the revision petition, this Court is not in
a position to interfere with the recovery steps initiated. Hence
the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
3. However it is made clear that the assessment of
luxury tax under Section 5A is on an year-to-year basis. The
W.P.(C).23816/09 3
petitioner is at liberty to object assessments of luxury tax with
respect to the period subsequent to the assessment already
completed by producing convincing evidence before the 3rd
respondent Tahsildar, that the building in question was
completed prior to 1.4.1999. If the petitioner files any
representation in this regard before the 3rd respondent along
with documents in support of such claim, the 3rd respondent shall
consider and pass fresh orders with respect to the assessment of
luxury tax for the further periods.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above
observations.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb