Writ petition challenged building tax and luxury tax orders; revision was dismissed as time-barred. The court upheld that order since the statute grants no condonation power to the District Collector, but held luxury tax is a recurring liability permitting fresh challenges to future demands with liberty to seek fresh plinth area determination.
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 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 13399 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
BASIM
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O LATE KUNHIMOHAMMED, PALAPPETTA HOUSE, PUTHALAM,
AREACODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, 673 639,
REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, KARATTIL SARABI,
AGED 64 YEARS, W/O LATE KUNHIMOHAMMED, PALAPETTA HOUSE,
PUTHALAM, AREACODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA.,
PIN - 673639
BY ADVS.
AKHEELA FARZANA
V.K.SIDHIQUE
SAJITHA SIDHIK
ANJALA FARHATH V.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 6765052 SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, NEAR MINI CIVIL STATION, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 6793223 THAHASILDAR, ERNAD TALUK ERNAD TALUK OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 6761214 VILLAGE OFFICER, AREACODE VILLAGE AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673639OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. JASMIN M.M.-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13399 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
The present writ petition has been filed impugning Exts. P5 to P7 orders under the provisions of Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (‘the Act’ for short) and rules made thereunder, passed by the respondents, levying and demanding the building tax and luxury tax under the provisions of the Act on the building of the petitioner situated in R. Survey No.499/7/3.
2.The plinth area of the petitioner’s building has been found to exceed the threshold limit of 278.7 sq.m. The petitioner has been levied the luxury tax for Rs.5000/- from 2020-2021 to 2023-2024. The petitioner could not succeed in his appeal and it got dismissed by Ext.P6 order against which he filed the revision before the District Collector beyond the limitation of 30 days prescribed under the statute. The District Collector by the impugned order in Ext.P7 has dismissed the revision on the ground that the District Collector does not have any power to condone the delay under the statue.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liability to pay the luxury tax is a recurring liability in every year. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Sebastian v. District Collector [2021 (5) KLT 745] , submits
WP(C) NO. 13399 OF 2024
that even if the petitioner has failed before the District Collector on the ground that his revision was barred by limitation, he should be permitted to challenge the demand of future luxury tax as held by this court in the aforesaid judgment.
4.I find no difficulty in the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that an Authority / Tribunal or Court created under the statute cannot condone the delay in filing the proceedings, if the statute does not provide so or empowers the said Authority / Tribunal or Court to condone the delay in filing the proceedings.
5.The District Collector is a creation of the statue, exercising the revisional jurisdiction against the order passed by the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer. The time limit prescribed for filing the revision is 30 days. The statue does not empowers the District Collector to condone the delay in filing revision filed beyond 30 days. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the District Collector in Ext.P7 does not suffer from any illegality. However, as submitted, the luxury tax is a recurring liability of every year, and therefore, if the petitioner is issued with a demand for future year, the petitioner will always be entitled to challenge the said demand before the appropriate authority. The said authority will not take
WP(C) NO. 13399 OF 2024
4
a stand that the issue is settled against the petitioner. A fresh determination may take place for arriving at the correct plinth area of the building of the petitioner for levying the luxury tax.
With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE
SJ
WP(C) NO. 13399 OF 2024
5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13399/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 |
A TRUEDATED |
COPY OF14-02-202 |
THE POWER OF ATTORNEY4 EXECUTED BY THE |
|---|---|---|---|
PETITIONOF INDIA |
ER BEFORE, NEW YOR |
THE CONSULATE GENERALK. |
|
EXHIBIT P2 |
A TRUEAND COLICENSED |
PHOTOCOPYMPLETIONENGINEER |
OF THE SPECIFICATIONSREPORT ISSUED BY THEDATED NIL |
EXHIBIT P3 |
A TRUE |
COPY OF C |
ERTIFICATE DATED 28-06- |
2022,GRAMA PA |
ISSUED BNCHAYATH |
Y SECRETARY, AREAKODE |
|
EXHIBIT P3(A) |
THE TRUE |
ENGLISH |
TRANSLATION OF EXT. P3 |
EXHIBIT P4 |
A TRUE08-2022TAHSILDA |
PHOTOCOPYISSUEDR |
OF THE ORDER DATED 12-BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
EXHIBIT P4(A) |
THE TRUE |
ENGLISH |
TRANSLATION OF EXT. P4 |
EXHIBIT P5 |
A TRUE08-2022TAHSILDA |
PHOTOCOPYISSUEDR |
OF THE ORDER DATED 16-BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
EXHIBIT P5(A) |
THE TRUE |
ENGLISH |
TRANSLATION OF EXT. P5 |
EXHIBIT P6 |
A TRUE02-2023 |
PHOTOCOPYPASSED BY |
OF THE ORDER DATED 16-THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
EXHIBIT P6(A) |
THE TRUE |
ENGLISH |
TRANSLATION OF EXT. P6 |
EXHIBIT P7 |
A TRUE12-2023 |
PHOTOCOPYPASSED BY |
OF THE ORDER DATED 05-THE 1ST RESPONDENT |
EXHIBIT P7(A) |
THE TRUE |
ENGLISH |
TRANSLATION OF EXT. P7 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Collector can condone delay in filing revision beyond the 30-day limit under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Whether the petitioner may challenge future luxury tax demands despite the revision being time-barred.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sebastian v. District CollectorRelied on
2021 (5) KLT 745
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Basim
District Collector, Malappuram
Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna
Tahasildar, Ernad Taluk
Village Officer, Areacode Village
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court