IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 35456 of 2007(U)
1. RATNAKUMARI S., W/O. K.SASIDHARA KURUP,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 35456 OF 2007 (U)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 30th November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The prayer is to quash Exts. P5, P9 and P11. These are orders
issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act. In essence what the
petitioner seeks is that the buildings should be treated as different
units and that the assessment should be in the name of the persons
in whose name it has been settled as per Ext. P2 settlement deed
executed by her.
2. However, I notice from the order of the assessing
authority as also the revisional authority that the assessment order
was issued on the basis of the report dated 6-8-2005 of the Village
Officer, Kollam East and that Ext. P2 settlement deed was executed
only on 25.8.2005. It is also stated that the ownership of the
dwelling units are seen transferred by the Corporation into the
name of the petitioner’s children only on 17.10.2005 on an
application dated 9.9.2005which again is much after the case wsa
booked by the assessing authority.
3. Thus, it is obvious that it is long after the case was
WPC No.35456/07
-2-
registered against the petitioner that the petitioner had transferred
the properties. If that be so, the assessing authority or the appellate
authority or the revisional authority under the Kerala Building Tax
Act cannot be faulted for treating the petitioner as the assessee and
also the building as one unit and levying tax on that basis.
4. Petitioner submits that the building was constructed
making use of the individual contributions made by her children. It
may be true that the petitioner would have made use of the funds
contributed by her children, but then the building is constructed in
her name and that the title was transferred later and therefore the
individual contribution that her children may have made, in my view,
is of no consequence. The orders impugned do not call for any
interference.
5. In so far as the luxury tax is concerned naturally that is
consequential to the orders of assessment which I have upheld and
hence I do not see any reason for interference with that order either.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
jan/-