IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10982 of 2008(G)
1. SMT.K.S.SAFIYA, W/O.MUAHAMAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALIPARAMBA TALUK,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :29/07/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 10982 OF 2008 G
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner constructed a house. It measures 286.38 Sq.
Metres. Petitioner came to be assessed to luxury tax by Ext.P1
dated 15.9.2004. The second respondent, according to
petitioner, included the car parking area. Ext.P2 is the plan.
Petitioner preferred Ext.P3 Appeal which was dismissed by
Ext.P4 on the ground of delay. The main contention taken by
the petitioner is that going by the decision of this Court in
Jayakumar v. State of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 34), the plinth area
of the garage cannot be taken into account for determining the
plinth area of the building. It is also submitted that there can be
no res judicata also in the matter of challenge to the levy of
luxury tax every year. I heard the learned Government Pleader
also. A Statement is filed producing a sketch by the Deputy
Tahsildar. There is no mention whether there was a garage or
not. Anyway, going by the decision of this Court, the portion of
WPC.10982/08 G 2
the garage has to be excluded. Levy of luxury tax is a recurring
liability. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and
Ext.P1 is quashed, so that the matter can be reconsidered. The
second respondent will afford an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and take a decision in the matter, taking note of the
decision of this Court in Jayakumar v. State of Kerala (2006 (2)
KLT 34). He may also conduct a re-measurement and ascertain
whether there is a garage and what is the area of the garage. A
decision shall be taken only after hearing the petitioner, within
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
There shall be no further demand for luxury tax until a decision
is taken as aforesaid.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.