Kerala High Court
P.V. Joseph vs The State Of Kerala on 25 October, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
2024:KER:79587
W.P (C) No.37575/2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 37575 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
P.V. JOSEPH,
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O K.K. LATE P.P. VARGHESE, K.P.V/965-B, M.L.A ROAD,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE,CIVIL STATION,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU,THIRUVANANTAPURAM, PIN - 695043
3 TAHASIDLAR (REVENUE),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK,THALUK OFFICE,
FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE,KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
5 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695033
2024:KER:79587
W.P (C) No.37575/2024 -2-
SMT. DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79587
W.P (C) No.37575/2024 -3-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact
that luxury tax is being collected in respect of building belonging to the
petitioner without authority of law. It is the case of the petitioner that the
building in question was constructed prior to 01-04-1999 and there cannot be
any levy of building tax under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act,
1975 ('the 1975 Act) in respect of building.
2. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the petitioner
has on his own showing been assessed to luxury tax and he has been paying
the amount till 2013. It is pointed out that the representation submitted by
the petitioner before the Tahsildar (Ext.P3) is seen filed in 2014. It is
submitted that the matter is to be considered by the competent authority
since the question as to whether the petitioner had completed the
construction of the building prior to the cut-off date is a matter to be
ascertained with reference to the records.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Senior Government Pleader and having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that if the
petitioner were to make a fresh representation before the 3 rd respondent
2024:KER:79587
taking up the contention that the building of the petitioner was constructed
prior to the cut-off date mentioned in Section 5A of the 1975 Act, the 3 rd
respondent shall consider that question and take a decision as to whether the
petitioner is liable to pay luxury tax under the provisions of the 1975 Act. The
petitioner shall file his representation within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that even if
it is held that the building in question was constructed prior to the cut off
date, the petitioner will not be entitled to any refund of luxury tax already
paid.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
2024:KER:79587
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37575/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE
DATED 25-03-1999
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ALLOTTING
HOUSE NUMBER DATED 25-03-1999
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE REVENUE MINISTER WITH COPIES TO
THE 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS HEREIN DATED
01-11-2014
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 30-
10-2014
