Disposed

Rejimol Thomas v. Tahsildar, Kottayam

Kerala HC11 Sept 2007WP(C)/9645/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged recovery proceedings for building and luxury tax levied on a residential building sold by the petitioner. The Court observed that such taxes attach to the building and are recoverable via sale, directing the Tahsildar to sue the present owner.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to current owner; if arrears unpaid with interest, proceed to sell building. Sellers and buyers to settle disputes separately.

Rejimol Thomas Vs Tahsildar, Kottayam — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 20TH BHADRA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 9645 of 2007(W)

PETITIONER:

REJIMOL THOMAS, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O THOMAS, PARAMALAYIL, AMMANCHERY, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

M.L.LUKA, THUNDATHIL,KALLARA, PERUMTHURUTHU, KOTTAYAM.

¶16

R1 AND R2 BY G.P. SRI. CK. GOVINDAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.2.2006

¶22

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.3.2006

¶23

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.3.2006

¶24

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON 2.5.2006

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶26

TRUE COPY

¶27

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶28

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.

¶29

W.P.C. NO. 9645 OF 2007

¶30

Dated this the 11th day of September, 2007

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of building tax and luxury tax in respect of residential building sold by the petitioner to another person who in turn sold it to yet another person. So far as building tax liability is concerned, even though it is that of the person who completed construction of the building, there is a charge on the building so constructed by virtue of operation of Section 19(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Luxury tax is a continuous liability and the person in possession and enjoyment of the building will be continuously liable to pay luxury tax. Hence both building tax and luxury tax could be recovered by attachment and sale of the assessed building under Section 19(2) of the Act, the Tahsildar is directed to issue notice to the present owner and if arrears of tax is not paid with interest to proceed to sell the building and recover the arrears of tax. It is for the sellers and Buyers to settle the dispute if any among them with regard to the person who under agreement has taken over liability.

¶33

W.P. is closed with the above observations.

¶34

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge

¶35

Rejimol Thomas v. Tahsildar, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rejimol Thomas v. Tahsildar, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aldose Mathew Vs Mini Antony

K.Vivek Kumar Vs Sharat Sabharval

Cochin Alloy Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B.

K.S.Saji Vs the District Collector.

B.Sasidharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

V.M.Sabhir, Vs Asst.Engineer, Kseb.