JOSE ABRAHAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute pertains to assessment of Luxury Tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975. THE residential building constructed by the petitioner was assessed for payment of Building Tax under Section 5, calculating plinth area at Rs. 281.677 Sq.M, as evidenced from Ext.P1. Through Ext.P3 proceedings, the 3rd respondent assessed Luxury Tax under Section 5A, recurringly from the year 2007-08 onwards, at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per year, on the premise that plinth area of the building is above the statutory limit of Rs.278.7 Sq.M.

(2.) SPECIFIC contention of the petitioner is that, as per the building plan approved by the local authority, the plinth area is only Rs.273.46 Sq.M and therefore the petitioner is not liable for payment of Luxury Tax under Section 5A. It is contended that merely because the petitioner remitted the building tax assessed under Section 5A, which is one time payment, he should not be precluded from challenging the assessment under Section 5A. The matter was taken up in appeal before the 2nd respondent and in Ext.P5 order it was observed that there is no much difference in the plinth area between the assessment made by the 3rd respondent and the plinth area approved by the local authority. Therefore the contention that there was mistake in measurement of plinth area was rejected. Against Ext.P5 the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent as per Ext.P6. But the 1st respondent had rejected the revision petition holding that, the revision petition was not filed within 30 days of receipt of the impugned order of the appellate authority. It is also observed that the petitioner has not submitted any application for condonation of delay. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P3, P5 and P7 orders in this writ petition.

(3.) THE finding of the 1st respondent in rejecting the revision petition without affording an opportunity to petitioner to rectify the defect, is highly unreasonable. If the revision petition was not in order, the 1st respondent ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner requesting him to rectify such defects. It is evident that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file any application seeking condonation of delay. Learned Government Pleader draws my attention to the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act to contend that there is no specific provision for condonation of delay. However, under the general provisions of law, the authority has got inherent power to condone the delay on the basis of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.