M IBRAHIM KUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P3 revisional order passed as early as on 27.10.2011 with reference to an assessment against the petitioner for payment of luxury tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.

(2.) Learned Single Judge did not interfere with the said revisional order, since the writ petition was filed after two years and was highly belated. However, since the liability to pay luxury tax is a recurring liability, learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to move the 4th respondent as per law for determining the liability in respect of future years to come.

(3.) Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that there was no delay on their part as he had moved the Lok Ayukta challenging Ext.P3, we are not satisfied with the averments made in the writ petition or the grounds made out in the memorandum of appeal. The learned Judge has not committed any illegality while issuing the directions in the writ petition.