The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging assessment, appellate, and revisional orders imposing building and luxury tax. The Court held that the concurrent finding of fact regarding the building's plinth area by the authorities was not open to interference.
The writ petition is dismissed; interim order, if any, stands vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 14178 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
UMMUSALMA C.H,
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O. UMMERKUTTY, "SANAS", PANERI CHALIL, IRIVERI,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670613
BY ADVS.
T.P.SAJID
SHIFA LATHEEF
MUHAMMED HAROON A.N.
RESPONDENTS:
1 TAHSILDAR,KANNUR TALUK OFFICE, NEAR GANDHI CIRCLE, SOUTH BAZAR,
KANNUR 670002
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 17, PALLISSERY, THALASSERY, PIN - 6701013 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE ROAD, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.14178 of 2023
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2023
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India impugning assessment order, 1 st Appellate order as well as Revisional order passed by the respondents respectively, in respect of building tax and luxury tax on the residential building of the petitioner situated in resurvey No.2B of Iriveri Village, Kannur Taluk, Kannur District.
2 . All three Authorities concurrently held that the petitioner’s building is having plinth area of 293.49 square meter, which is much above the prescribed limit of 278.7 square meter for claiming exemption for the payment of the luxury tax.
3 . This Court does not find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. The petitioner’s representative appeared
WP(C) No.14178 of 2023
3
before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner choose not to appear before the Revisional Authority despite service of notice.
4 . Considering the aforesaid fact and also the question, what is the plinth area of the building is a question of fact and three authorities concurrently held that the plinth area of the building to be 293.49 square meter, this Court does not interfere with the concurrent finding of the fact.
Therefore, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE
AP
WP(C) No.14178 of 2023
4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14178/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS |
||
|---|---|---|
Exhibit P1 |
TRUE COPY OF THE27651/2015 DATED |
ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. C4-26/12/2015 |
Exhibit P2 |
TRUE COPY OF THE20/1/2016 BEFORE |
DEPOSITED RECEIPT DATEDTHE IRIVERI VILLAGE OFFICE |
Exhibit P3 |
TRUE COPY OF THETHALASSERY HAVING10/11/2020 |
ORDER OF THE SUB COLLECTORNO. DDSF/1542/16 DATED |
Exhibit P4 |
TRUE COPY OF THE |
REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE |
DISTRICT COLLECTO2417/2021/G9/DDS |
R NO . DCKNRDATED 24/3/2023 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment, appellate, and revisional orders regarding building and luxury tax should be sustained.
Whether the concurrent finding of fact regarding the plinth area of the building by all three authorities should be accepted.
Ummusalma C.H
Tahsildar, Kannur Taluk Office
The Revenue Divisional Officer, NH 17
The District Collector, Thavakkara
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court