Remanded

Sumoni Paul v. State

Kerala HC18 Oct 2013WP(C)/1673/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged demands for luxury tax on a residential building. The court held that tax liability under Section 5A depends on construction completion date, not tax assessment date. The court quashed certain orders and remitted the matter to re-determine the construction date.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Exts. P2, P4, P6 and P8 orders and remitted the matter to the first respondent to determine the date of construction and affort a hearing.

Sumoni Paul Vs State — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/26TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 1673 of 2011 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUMONI PAUL, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.PAUL, VEETUVAZHI PUTHENPURA, PERIYARAM AIKARNAD SOUTH.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU, PIN-683542.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARNAD SOUTH, PIN-683542.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY, POOTHRIKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PIN-682308.

¶13

4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686661.

¶14

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU PIN-682030.

¶15

R1, R2 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. SHAIJ RAJ R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

DCS

¶18

WP(C).No. 1673 of 2011 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT. P1:-	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT. P2:-	COPY OF THE NOTICE
EXT. P3:-	COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE YEARLY BUILDING TAX ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT. P4:-	COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE
EXT. P5:-	COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C). NO. 6398/2009
EXT. P6:-	COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT. P7:-	COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXT. P8:-	COPY OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶27

------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 1673 of 2011

¶28

----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2013

¶29

The precise question as to whether the construction of the residential building was completed before 01.04.1999 has not been considered in the proper perspective. The petitioner relies on Ext.P1 certificate issued by the third respondent Panchayat to contend that the building was numbered even as early as on 20.03.1999. The authorities have proceeded on the basis that the building was assessed to Panchayat Tax only after 01.04.1999 which has little relevance to decide the point in controversy.

¶30

The liability to pay luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 arises only if the construction is completed after 01.04.1999. It may be true that the petitioner was assessed to pay Panchayat Tax only from 01.04.1999 onwards even though he might have completed the construction well before 01.04.1999. The matter needs a fresh consideration at the hands of the first respondent after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 1673 of 2011 2

¶32

I quash Exts. P2, P4, P6 and P8 orders and remit the matter to the first respondent. The first respondent shall put the petitioner on notice and complete the exercise within a period of two months. Opportunity shall be afforded to all the parties to produce necessary evidence to prove the date of construction of the building.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

sd/-

¶35

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶36

DCS

Sumoni Paul v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumoni Paul v. State

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

Antony Jose Vs Chief Manager

R.P.Ravindran Vs Catholic Syrian Bank

Nava Jyothi Ashram Vs State of Kerala

P.S.Kurian @ Anujan Anthikayam Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Lucy Sebastian Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.