Dismissed

P.a.Abraham v. the District Collector

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016WP(C)/3093/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his building tax and luxury tax assessment, claiming the assessed plinth area was wrongly computed and excluding parts like the car porch. Lacking material evidence to substantiate the claim that the area was actually less than assessed, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as petitioner failed to produce material evidence to substantiate the claim of reduced plinth area.

P.a.Abraham Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3093 of 2015 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.A.ABRAHAM, AGED 54, S/O LATE CHANDY ABRAHAM, PULIYILATH HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 645

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR & ASSESSING AUTHORITY, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE OFFICE,

¶13

PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 645

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 3093 of 2015 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1 PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14/05/2010 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 14-03-2013 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 23-01-2014 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 30-01-2014 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 20-04-2014 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04-12-2014 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 08-01-2015.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶27

=============== W.P. (C) No. 3093 of 2015

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this, the 25^th day of October, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P7 by which the building of the petitioner had been assessed to payment of building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 and luxury tax in terms of Section 5(A) of the said Act.

¶32

The main contention of the petitioner is regarding the plinth area of the building. According to the petitioner, the plinth area is only 274 sq.metres whereas while making the assessment, the assessing authority had wrongly computed the area as 311.14 sq.metres. Petitioner submits that the car porch and open terrace ought to have been excluded from the measurement of luxury tax. Though it is contended by the petitioner that the area is around 274 sq.metres, no materials are seen produced to substantiate the said contention. According to the assessing authority, the plinth area is 311.14 sq. metres. The District Collector had also considered the aforesaid issue. Petitioner had only sought for excluding certain area from assessment. It was noticed by the District Collector based on a

¶33

W.P(C) No.3093/15

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

photograph produced that the area which was under compliant has been enclosed by the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that there was no material to indicate that the area is less than what has been fixed by the assessing authority, the District Collector had confirmed the demand.

¶36

Before this Court also, other than producing Ext.P1 photograph, petitioner had not produced any materials to indicate that the area is 274 sq. metres and not exigible for liability to pay luxury tax.

¶37

Under such circumstances, I do not think that this Court should entertain this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶40

Rp25/10/2016

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

P.S to Judge

P.a.Abraham v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Abraham v. the District Collector

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

Saraswathy Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others

Thomas Kochu Varkey Vs Additional District Magistrate

Waheeda M.H. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Shamima Vs District Collector, Kasaragod

Valapattanam Jumamasjid Vs the Assessing Authority

Abdul Salam N.A. Vs District Collector