Quashed

Chacko Thomas v. the District Collector, Kottayam

Kerala HC10 Sept 2012WP(C)/8778/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging orders imposing luxury tax under Section 5 A of the Building Tax Act, the petitioner relied on a Panchayath certificate proving construction prior to the relevant date. The Court found prima facie support for the taxpayer and quashed the tax orders, remanding the matter for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Orders Ext.P7, P10 and P11 quashed; Third Respondent directed to issue notice to Petitioner and pass fresh orders within eight weeks.

Chacko Thomas Vs the District Collector, Kottayam — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/19TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 8778 of 2007 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

CHACKO THOMAS, MYLAKKATTU HOUSE, VELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.K.SUNIL SRI.AJEY THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

¶12

KOTTAYAM.

¶13

3. THE THAHASILDAR, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SRI. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMPAPRAMBIL.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 8778 of 2007 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.A2-11/2002 DT.29/07/2002 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE) PAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶21

EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 01/4/1996 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97.

¶22

EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED FROM THE PANCHAYAT OFFICE FOR THE PAYMENT OF PUBILDING TAX FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS UP TO 2004-2005 EXCEPT 2003-2004.

¶23

EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE BUILDING TAX ACT DT 22/2/2001.

¶24

EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX (REVENUE)

¶25

EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B8(3)3244/2002 DT.25/06/2002

¶26

EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B8(3)3244/2002 DT 12/07/2002 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT

¶27

EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B8(3)3244/2002 DT 31//2002.

¶28

EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FLED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶29

EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2972/02/D PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 19/2/2003.

¶30

EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT 4/4/2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER

¶31

EXT.P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B10-15706/2003 DT 14/02/2007.

¶32

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.8778 of 2007

¶38

Dated this the 10^th day of September, 2012

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Petitioner challenges Ext.P7, P10 and P12. By Ext.P7, luxury tax was levied on a building constructed by the petitioner on the basis that plinth area of the building is 332.87 Sq.metres. Aggrieved by the assessment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the RDO, which was rejected by Ext.P10 order. Revision filed before the District Collector was also rejected by Ext.P12 order. It is challenging these proceedings, the writ petition is filed.

¶41

The case of the petitioner is that the building was constructed prior to 01.04.1996 and he has been paying building tax on the building since then. It is stated that therefore, luxury tax levied by Section 5 A of the Building Tax Act introduced with effect from 01.04.1999, is not leviable. However, contention of the respondents is that as per the report obtained by them, building was completed after 01.04.1999. It is also their argument that, in spite of a direction issued to him, the

¶42

W.P.(C).No.8778/2007

¶43

: 2 :

¶44

petitioner did not produce any document evidencing the date of completion. Therefore, according to them, the levy of luxury tax is legal and valid.

¶45

Although going by the impugned orders, there is force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that there was failure on the part of the petitioner in producing documents to substantiate this contention that the building was completed before 01.04.1996, still Ext.P1 certificate produced before this Court shows that the Panchayath itself has certified that the building was completed prior to 01.04.1996. Exts.P2 and P3 shows that the petitioner has been paying building tax in respect of the building from 1996 -1997 onwards. Prima facie, therefore, there is force in the contention of the petitioner that the building was already in existence prior to 01.04.1999. Therefore, although there was dearth of materials before the respondents, having regard to the prima facie materials that are available in this writ petition, I am of the view that this is a matter, which requires to be reconsidered by the third respondent, so that the petitioner can produce document substantiating his contention also.

¶46

W.P.(C).No.8778/2007

¶47

: 3 :

¶48

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Exts.P7, P10 and P11 orders and directing the third respondent to issue notice to the petitioner herein and pass fresh orders in the matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶50

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶51

Chacko Thomas v. the District Collector, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chacko Thomas v. the District Collector, 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

District Transport Officer Vs Abdul Razak

Yousaf Vs the District Collector

Vasudevan Pillai Vs Govt. of Kerala

Jayadev.P.S. Vs the Branch Manager, the Federal Bank Ltd.

Elavarasi Jayakanth Vs the Branch Manager

C.Yousaph Vs the Intelligence Officer