M R SHINY BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is against Exts.P9, P12 and P14 demand notices requiring the petitioner to remit Building Tax and Luxury Tax assessed under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Specific contention of the petitioner is that the building in question is having two independent floors, to which the local authority had assigned separate building numbers and assessed property tax separately. It is contended that the petitioner is using the ground floor for residential purpose and the first floor is used for commercial activity wherein the petitioner is conducting business in distribution of Alopaethic Medicines. Petitioner had produced copy of Drug licence issued in order to substantiate the conduct of business in the first floor.

(2.) THROUGH Ext.P9 the petitioner was assessed with tax computing the total plinth area of the building as 297.55 Sq.mtr. and treating the entire area as residential. It is stated that when the luxury tax was demanded under Section 5A, the petitioner had approached this court by filing OP No.6597/2003. In Ext.P11 judgment, the said writ petition was disposed of along with other identical mattes giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the assessing authority with respect to dispute in measurement and directing the said authority to conduct verification and to revise the assessment in view of the decision of this court in S. Jayakumar V. State of Kerala (2006 (1) ILR 765). It is stated that during pendency of the above said writ petition an interim was issued by this court as per Ext.P10 directing the 2nd respondent to conduct an inspection and to give report to this court regarding the number of rooms, layout, structure and nature of use. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a favourable report was forwarded by the 2nd respondent in compliance with the interim direction. However, copy of such report is not available in the records of the present case.

(3.) CONSIDERING totality of the circumstances prevailing, I am of the view that the demand raised in Exts.P12 and P14 is perfectly sustainable. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the 2nd respondent against continued levy of luxury tax under Section 5A. If any such approach is made the 2nd respondent shall make a verification of the building and determine as to whether the continued levy of luxury tax under Section 5A is justified or not. For this purpose the 2nd respondent shall take note of the settled legal precedents and physical nature of the building in question and its usage. However, the petitioner will be liable for payment of amounts due till the current year.