Dismissed

Satheesh Pattani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Sept 2016WP(C)/11360/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged luxury tax liability by arguing that including the veranda would reduce the taxable plinth area below 278.7 sq.m. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, relying on a Division Bench precedent (W.A.No.1177/2007) which held that Section 2 k of the Kerala Building Tax Act mandates strict inclusion of the whole floor area.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; luxury tax liability upheld based on statutory definition of plinth area.

Satheesh Pattani Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/4TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11360 of 2015 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SATHEESH PATTANI, PATTANI HOUSE, KADAPLAMATTOM PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.KOSHY GEORGE SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

¶11

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686002.

¶12

3. REVENUE DIVISONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF RDO, PALA, KOTTAYAM 686575.

¶13

4. THAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF THE THAHASILDAR, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM 686589.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 11360 of 2015 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION WITH THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶21

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2013 WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶22

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STATUARY REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.01.2014 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶23

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2014 WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.11360 of 2015

¶30

Dated this the 26^th day of September 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioner challenges the liability to pay luxury tax on the ground that the area of building is less than 278.7 sq.meters. As per the authorities, the area will come to 294.43 sq.meters after excluding the garage and other areas. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the veranda of the building also is to be excluded and if so, the total area will be less than 278.7 sq.meters.

¶33

This issue has been dealt by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1177/2007 wherein the Division Bench held as under:

¶34

“The question raised is whether the appellant's newly built house attracts luxury tax under section 5 of Kerala Building Tax Act? After hearing both sides and on going through records we notice that on three occasions, when the Village Officer measured the plinth area, it was above 282 M² , whereas, building attracts tax liability if the plinth area is 278.7 M² or above. Counsel for appellant

¶35

W.P.C.No.11360/2015

¶36

¶37

submits that plinth area is to be measured based on the Municipal Building Rules which provide for exclusion of 50% of open space like balcony. Government Pleader opposed stating that plinth area has to be measured strictly in terms of the definition contained in Kerala Building Tax Act.

¶38

2. The contention by the appellant that the plinth area for the purpose of Building Rules provides for exclusion of 50% of open space is only for fixing the limit of construction in accordance with the Floor Area Rules. So far as the Building Tax Act is concerned, plinth area defined under Section 2 k includes the built up areas which means the whole floor area of the building. We therefore do not find any merit in appellant's challenge against judgment confirming levy and demand of luxury tax on appellant's building and which has plinth area above 278.7 M² .”

¶39

Having regard to the aforesaid law laid down by the

¶40

Division Bench, I do not think that the petitioner has a valid grievance to contend otherwise. All the authorities have arrived at a finding after taking note of the assessment made and therefore challenge to the impugned orders is out of place. In

¶41

W.P.C.No.11360/2015

¶42

¶43

the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench , I do not think that the contention urged by the petitioner can be sustained.

¶44

This writ petition is therefore dismissed.

¶45

(sd/-)

¶46

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶47

jsr

Satheesh Pattani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh Pattani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Gopalakrishnan Vs Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.

V.K.Mathew Vs Kse Board

M/S.Prince Alloys Private Limited & Anr. Vs K.S.E.Regulatory Commission and Others

Fathima P.P. Vs Kannur University

Mani A.V. Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Shibily Parveen A.B Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences