Disposed

Jose v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC8 Oct 2013WP(C)/21247/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, admitting building tax liability but disputing luxury tax assessment based on plinth area, undertook to pay building tax and luxury tax for prior years. Court directed fresh measurement of plinth area for future luxury tax liability.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay building tax and luxury tax with interest; fresh measurement of plinth area to be conducted for future luxury tax liability.

Jose Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — 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

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 21247 of 2013 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

JOSE,

¶8

S/O PORINJU, THAIKKADAN VEEDU, WADAKKANCHERI

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR 680001

¶12

2. TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR 680001

¶13

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERI, THRISSUR 680623

¶14

4. THE SECRETARY, SPECIAL GRADE, WADAKKANCHERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH THRISSUR 680623

¶15

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-102013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 21247 of 2013 (E)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DATED 19-03-2013
EXHIBIT P2	THE ORDER OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR DATED 18-06-2009
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM TAHSILDAR DATED 04-10-2012
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY WADAKKANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 03-10-2012

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

SMM

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶27

= = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.21247 of 2013

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = =

¶29

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2013

¶30

The petitioner does not dispute his liability to pay building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975('the Act' for short). The Government Pleader however points out that only the first instalment of the tax has been paid and that the petitioner is yet to pay the remaining three instalments. The petitioner undertakes to pay the remaining three instalments of building tax in the course of three months. The instalments shall be paid in the month of October, November and December (on or before 31-12-2013). The failure to pay the building tax under Section 5 of the Act within the time can empower the respondents to initiate revenue recovery proceedings.

¶31

The liability to pay the luxury tax under Section 5 A of the Act is however disputed. The petitioner asserts that the plinth area has been reckoned including that of the outhouse used for storage of firewood. The Government Pleader points out that the car porch has been excluded and that the 'veranda' is liable to be included. The Government Pleader adds that the

¶32

W.P.(C) No.21247 of 2013 2

¶33

petitioner has not established that the outhouse is used for storage of firewood as contended. There is also paucity of evidence to show that the outhouse is used for any non residential purpose like storage of agricultural implements.

¶34

There is dearth of evidence as of now to hold that the outhouse is used for storage of firewood or for any non residential purpose. But the liability to pay luxury tax under Section 5A of the Act is recurring every year. The petitioner has already paid luxury tax for the year 2008-09 and he undertakes to remit the luxury tax upto 2012-2013 shortly. The question of payment of luxury tax under Section 5 A for the years 2013-14 onwards shall be determined afresh.

¶35

It is open to the petitioner to move the second respondent seeking fresh measurement of the plinth area in his presence. The plinth area shall be determined afresh with specific reference to the provisions of the Act. The proviso to Section 5(5) and Section 6 of the Act shall be adverted to for this purpose. The determination and the liability of the luxury tax for the future years shall be done untrammelled by anything said in Ext.P1 order.

¶36

I hasten to add that the petitioner is liable to pay the

¶37

W.P.(C) No.21247 of 2013

¶38

¶39

building tax as well as the luxury tax under the Act with the applicable interest. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition with the judgment before the second respondent for compliance.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶42

smm

Jose v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Dr.Bhaskaranunni.K.N. Vs the Debt Recovery Tribunal

Gopalan Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Mahesh S Madhavan Vs State Bank of Mysore

The M.D., K.S.R.T.C, Vs S.Ansalam

Sakeena Vs the Tahsildar

Kunhimuhammed.P.K. Vs State Bank of India