MOHAMMED HAJI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge raised by the petitioner is against the order imposing luxury tax at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem as per Exhibit P1. The same has been confirmed in appeal as per Exhibit P2 and in revision by Exhibit P4 by the District Collector.

(2.) It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the contentions raised by the petitioner have not been considered by the various statutory authorities. It is pointed out that the construction was, prior to 1.1.1999, in the year 1997 and therefore luxury tax cannot be assessed to the building. It is also pointed out that the area is below 278.7 Sq.metres and the car porch, fire log shed and work area etc. were included. Form No.2 was not signed by the petitioner.

(3.) A reading of Exhibit P1 shows that the plinth area has been assessed as 330.21 Sq.metres. In the appeal, Exhibit P2, evidently the petitioner relied upon a certificate from the Secretary of the Panchayat stating that the building was constructed in the year 1997. Appellate Authority found that in Form No.2, the completion date is recorded as during the year 2001. Therefore, the appeal was rejected. The District Collector in Exhibit P4 also considered the very same contention. It was found that Form No.2 was signed by brother of the petitioner, as the petitioner was not available, which aspect has been accepted by the petitioner also in the revision petition and accordingly the said contention was rejected. With regard to the contention that the building was constructed in 1997, it was found by the District Collector that no evidence was adduced by the petitioner and therefore the said contention was also rejected.