Disposed

Spinny Varghese K, v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC4 Oct 2023WP(C)/3518/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order disposed of a writ petition challenging a luxury tax demand. The court directed the Tahsildar to measure the petitioner's building on a specific date in the petitioner's presence, pass a detailed assessment order, and allow admissible deductions, prohibiting the issuance of a fresh notice for measurement.

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar directed to take measurement of the petitioner's building on 20.10.2023 in presence of the petitioner, pass detailed assessment order allowing deductions, and no fresh notice to be issue

Spinny Varghese K, Vs the Tahsildar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 12TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3518 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SPINNY VARGHESE K, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. K.P. VARGHESE, KUTTIKKAT HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTH, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683516.

¶8

2 REJEE ITTIYARA, AGED 38 YEARS

¶9

W/O. SPINNY VARGHESE K. KUTTIKKAT HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTH, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683516.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY ANIL GEORGE DAJISH JOHN HARIKRISHNAN P.

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE TAHSILDAR, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683513.

¶14

2 THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY (TAHASILDAR), NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683513.

¶15

3 MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE OFFICER, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 516.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.3518/2022

¶17

-2-

¶18

4 VADAKKEKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKEKKARA P.O, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683522, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

¶19

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN-GP

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C) No.3518/2022

¶24

-3-

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners questioning the demand of luxury tax from the petitioners for their building in Ext.P7 as well as a direction to take measurement of the building for assessing whether the petitioners building is exigible for luxury tax under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act.

¶27

The petitioners constructed the said building over land in Survey No.245/12 of Moothakunnam Village, Ernakulam District. According to the petitioner, the plinth area of the building constructed by the petitioner is only 254.078 sq m. The petitioners were assessed to building tax which they discharged. The petitioners were also required to pay the luxury tax, which they were remitting regularly till Ext.P7 notice was issued for the year 2021-22. The petitioner

¶28

W.P.(C) No.3518/2022

¶29

-4-

¶30

has paid the luxury tax up to 2020-21. However, when the petitioners did not deposit the luxury tax for the year 2021-22, Ext.P7 notice was issued, to which the petitioner made representation in Ext.P8.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶32

the petitioners have deposited the luxury tax in pursuance of Ext.P7 notice also.

¶33

Ms Rasmitha Ramachandran, learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners’ representation has been considered and a reply had been given to the petitioners, way

¶34

back on 25.01.2022 with direction to the petitioners to remit the luxury tax for the Financial Year 2021-22 in order to consider Ext.P8 application.

¶35

According to the petitioners, they had already paid

¶36

the luxury tax in pursuance of the Ext.P7 notice. The Tahsildar

¶37

has to take the measurement of the plinth area of the building

¶38

in their presence and then decide whether the petitioners’

¶39

W.P.(C) No.3518/2022

¶40

-5-

¶41

building is liable for imposing the luxury tax or not.

¶42

The Tahsildar should take measurements of the

¶43

petitioners’ building on 20.10.2023. The petitioner is directed to remain present at the time of measurement of the building. After taking the measurement, a detailed assessment order should be passed in accordance with the law and allow admissible deductions from the plinth area. No fresh notice shall be issued to the petitioner for taking the measurement. The Tahsildar and the petitioner shall remain present, and the measurement shall be taken on 20.10.2023.

¶44

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGE

jjj

W.P.(C) No.3518/2022

¶51

-6-

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3518/2022

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 01-7- 2021
Exhibit P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE
Exhibit P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-08- 2017
Exhibit P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT DATED 29-08-2017
Exhibit P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 29-08-2017
Exhibit P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT DATED 05-03-2018 FOR THE PERIOD 2018-2019
Exhibit P6(A)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT DATED 16-03-2019 FOR THE PERIOD 2019-2020
Exhibit P6B	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT DATED 23-03-2020
Exhibit P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POST CARD RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09-07-2021
Exhibit P8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 14-09-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.
Exhibit P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATES DATED 16/11/2021.
Exhibit P10	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTERS DATED 25/01/2022.

Spinny Varghese K, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Spinny Varghese K, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girija Rajan Vs Station House Officer

P.R. Rajeev, Vs Commissioner of Customs, Customs (Preventive)

Anilkumar a.v., Vs Regional Transport Officer

M/S. Puravankara Limited, Vs State of Kerala

Shastha Enterprises Vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals)

Navaikulam Farmers Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.1731, Vs Union of India