Kerala High Court
Malini Jayan vs District Collector Ernakulam on 20 February, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945
WA NO. 223 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 24877/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MALINI JAYAN
AGED 35 YEARS
MEKADAMBU,P.O.VALAKOM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN -
682316
BY ADVS.
ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
S.SREEDEV
RONY JOSE
LEO LUKOSE
KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY
KARAN SCARIA ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM
KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030. NEW ADDRESS
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682030
2 THE TAHSILDAR ASSESSING AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY UNDER BUILDING TAX ACT,TALUK OFFICE
MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661., PIN -
686661
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHAVALAKAM
VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686661
WA No.223/2024
-:2:-
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE
VALAKOM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686661
5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT(BUILDING SECTION),MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686661
6 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP-V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.223/2024
-:3:-
JUDGMENT
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. She filed the writ
petition challenging Ext.P1 assessment order levying a luxury tax
on the residential building she owned as per the provisions of the
Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (for short, 'the Act'). According to
the appellant, the 2nd respondent/the Tahsildar also included the
area of the garage while calculating the total plinth area, which is
against Section 6 of the Act. The statutory appeal preferred by
the appellant against Ext.P1 order also suffered dismissal. It is
thereafter, the appellant approached this court invoking Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition as per the judgment dated 18 th
November, 2022. The appellant preferred this writ appeal
aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge.
2. We have heard Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, the
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. Section 5A of the Act empowers the State to charge
luxury tax on the building having a plinth area of 278.7 sq.metres
completed on or after the 1st day of April 1999. It is true that
according to Section 6 of the Act, the plinth area of a garage shall
not be considered for determining the plinth area of that building.
Ext. P1 assessment order shows the total plinth area of the
building as 287.4 sq. metres. The appellant preferred appeal
before the 3rd respondent challenging Ext.P1 order. The 3 rd
respondent called for a report from the 5 th respondent/ Assistant
Executive Engineer, Muvattupuzha, who, after inspection,
reported that the total plinth area of the building comes to
280.67 sq.metres. Ext.P3 is the said report. The 3rd respondent
dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P4 order based on Ext.P3.
A perusal of Ext.P3 and the plan attached to it would show
that the plinth area has been calculated by the 5 th respondent
excluding the area of the garage. In Ext.P3 also, the total plinth
area is 280.67 sq.metre which is above the threshold limit for
levy of luxury tax. The assessing authority, as well as the
appellate authority on appreciation of facts, found that the total
plinth area of the building of the appellant, even after excluding
the garage portion, is above the limit prescribed under Section 5A
and thus amenable to the luxury tax. We find no reason to
interfere with the said factual finding in the exercise of
jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
