The court quashed orders rejecting an appeal and revision against a luxury tax demand. The matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry into the building's plinth area. Recovery of tax was stayed for four months.
Orders Ext.P2 and P3 quashed; matter remanded to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration; recovery steps stayed for four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931
WP(C).No. 12841 of 2004(D)
PETITIONER(S):
LEKHA HARIDAS, MADHAVAM, EVOOR NORTH, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL
RESPONDENT(S):
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MOHAMED RAFIQ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.C NO.12841 OF 2004
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Ext.P1: True copy of the demand notice issued by Tahsildar, Karthikappally dated 3.1.2003.
Ext.P2: True copy of the order dated 24.7.2003 passed by the 3rd respondent.
Ext.P3: True copy of the order dated 8.3.2004 passed by the 3rd respondent.
Ext.P4: True copy of the notice demanding laxury tax of building tax.
/True Copy/
P.A. TO JUDGE
SPC
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
--------------------------W.P.(C)No.12841 OF 2004
------------------------------DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2009
J U D G M E N T
under S.5A of the Kerala Building Act, 1975. According to the petitioner the residential building constructed by him is having plinth area of only 186 Sq.ms. It is contented that the Deputy Thahasildar had measured the area of the building for the purpose of assessment of Building Tax, and he reported the plinth area of the building as 280 Sq.ms. This, according to the petitioner, is not correct and it was only due to extraneous reasons that such a report was filed. However, Building tax was assessed on the petitioner for an amount of Rs.4,800/-, which was remitted by him under protest. Thereafter Ext.P1 demand notice was issued requesting the petitioner to remit Luxury tax for the years from 2000 to 2003, amounting to Rs.6,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said demand, the petitioner filed appeal dated
W.P.(C)No.12841 of 2004
2
3.2.2003 before the 4th respondent. But the said appeal was rejected through Ext.P2 order assigning reason that the it was not filed within the time limit prescribed. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision before the 3rd respondent, which was also dismissed as per Ext.P3 order dated 8.3.2004. After dismissal of the revision petition, Ext.P4 demand was issued against him demanding a total amount Rs.10,000/- towards Luxury Tax due the years from 2000-01 to 2004-05. The challenge is against the demand of Luxury Tax made through Ext.P1 which is confirmed in appeal and revision, and also against the demand raised through Ext.P4.
W.P.(C)No.12841 of 2004
3
appeal is dated 3.2.2003. Therefore it is probable that the appeal is filed only against the demand of Luxury Tax made through Ext.P1. This is especially because of the fact that the petitioner had admitted that the amount of Rs.4,800/- was already remitted. In Ext.P3 order, the revisional authority also found that the appeal was filed belated. Both the authorities have not probably adverted to the fact that the appeal and revision relates to assessment of Luxury Tax.
circumstances it is only just and proper to have a reconsideration of the matter by the appellate authority.
W.P.(C)No.12841 of 2004
4
consideration of the appeal on its merits. 4th respondent will conduct proper enquiry into the facts of the case and if necessary make arrangements for measuring plinth area of the building with notice to the petitioner. The 4th respondent after considering all materials on records and after conducting proper enquiry will dispose of the matter with opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner as early as possible at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
spc
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the appeal and revision was based on a wrong premise regarding the nature of the tax demand.
Whether the matter should be reconsidered by the appellate authority to verify the plinth area of the building.
Whether recovery steps for the luxury tax should be kept in abeyance pending the fresh enquiry.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
LEKHA HARIDAS
STATE OF KERALA
COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNOOR
TAHSILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
