Writ petitioner challenged tax orders assessing building luxury tax based on a plinth area of 288.68 sq m. The composition bench dismissed the petition, relying on concordant findings by three revenue authorities that the disputed area constituted part of the brick plinth.
Petitioner's writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 25349 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
SAJEESH K ALIAS SAJEESH KODOTH, AGED 42 YEARS S/O A NARAYANAN NAIR, VILLARAMPATHI HOUSE, AYAMPARA & PERIYA VILLAGE & PO, KASARGOD, 671316, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KODOTH KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, THAVANAM, SANKARAMPADY PO, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671541
BY ADVS.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH; SUKARNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
OTHER PRESENT:
JASMINE M.M.-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.25349/2023
-2-
J U D G M E N T
Heard Mr Suresh Kumar learned Counsel for the
petitioner, and Ms Jasmin M M learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
under the provision of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975 (for short, ‘the Act’).
the said notice issued by the Assessing Authority, i.e., the Tahsildar. It appears that the Village Officer filed a report regarding the residential building constructed by the petitioner, mentioning the plinth area of the building as 262.28
W.P.(C) No.25349/2023
-3-
sq m. The building was completed in the year 2019. When the petitioner did not appear in response to the Ext.P2 notice, a charge Officer was deputed to inspect the building and file a report. The charge Officer, after inspecting the building, submitted the report stating the plinth area of the building as 288.68 sq m. As the area of the building was above 278.7 sq m, the building became exigible for the levy of luxury tax under Section 5A of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Authority assessed the building at Rs.9,600/- for building tax and luxury tax from 2019-20.
3.1 Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the
petitioner filed an appeal stating that the total plinth area of the building, excluding the car porch, was only 264 sq m, and while calculating the plinth area, the area used as the car porch at 24 sq m was wrongly included. In appeal, the Tahsildar was directed to produce records with remarks on the said ground of the appeal. The Tahsildar submitted a report.
W.P.(C) No.25349/2023
-4-
The Appellate Authority examined the records along with the
report, and the Appellate Authority was of the view that the plinth area calculated at 288.68 sq m was in order. The Appellate Authority also recorded that from the perusal of the records and inspection report and also the hearing conducted, the construction in dispute was not that of the car porch and the said portion was being used as a sit-out, and therefore, no infirmity was found in the order passed by the Tahsildar. Thus, the appeal came to be dismissed by Ext.P4 order and the order passed by the Assessing Authority was affirmed.
3.2 Again, against the said order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred Revision under Section 13 of the Act before the District Collector, Kasargod. The District Collector vide order in Ext.P5 dismissed the revision. The District Collector noted that the alleged car area had granite flooring, which is the flooring in the rest of the building, with stairs and a facility for sitting. The ground level
W.P.(C) No.25349/2023
-5-
of the area was not the same as that of the courtyard, and that
was being used as the front sit-out of the house. It was also said that there were two metal car porches having the same ground level as that of the courtyard on either side of the front side of the house, and the same was not included in the assessment order of the Tahsildar. Thus, the Revision also came to be dismissed vide Ext.P5 order.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE
jjj
W.P.(C) No.25349/2023
-6-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25349/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| Exhibit P 1 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPENXIX-1 FORM ISSUED BY PULLURPERIYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 5/4/2023 |
|---|---|
| Exhibit 2 | TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19/7/2019 ISSUED BY 1 ST RESPONDENT |
| Exhibit P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 25/10/2019 ISSUED BY 1 ST RESPONDENT |
| Exhibit P4 | TRUE OF TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25.01.2022 |
| Exhibit P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/4/2023 PASSED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the building tax assessment order should be allowed.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
SAJEESH K ALIAS SAJEESH KODOTH
TAHASILDAR/ASSESSING AUTHORITY, HOSDURG TALUK, KANHANGAD.PO, KASARGOD DISTRICT
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KASARGOD
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD
STATE OF KERALA
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
