Kerala High Court
Basim vs District Collector, Malappuram on 3 April, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
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 - 676505
2 SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA
OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, NEAR MINI CIVIL STATION,
PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322
3 THAHASILDAR, ERNAD TALUK
ERNAD TALUK OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN
- 676121
4 VILLAGE OFFICER, AREACODE VILLAGE
AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673639
OTHER 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
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
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13399/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
DATED 14-02-2024 EXECUTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE CONSULATE GENERAL
OF INDIA, NEW YORK.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SPECIFICATIONS
AND COMPLETION REPORT ISSUED BY THE
LICENSED ENGINEER DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 28-06-
2022, ISSUED BY SECRETARY, AREAKODE
GRAMA PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P3(A) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P3
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-
08-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
TAHSILDAR
EXHIBIT P4(A) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P4
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-
08-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
TAHSILDAR
EXHIBIT P5(A) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P5
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-
02-2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6(A) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P6
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-
12-2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7(A) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P7
