ROSAMMA THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had put up a residential building on property belonging to her. During the year 1996, she proposed to put up additional construction on the first floor of the said building and accordingly, she approached the Local Authority for a building permit which was granted to her and was valid till 16-10-1999. It is submitted that, thereafter, the petitioner completed the additional construction of the first floor in 1998 and also paid property tax in respect of the additional constructions for the year 1998-1999 as evidenced by Exts.P7, P7(a) and P8 documents produced by her. By Ext.P9 application dated 4-1-1999, she had also applied for the issuance of an occupancy certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that the said documents would clearly establish that the petitioner had completed the construction of the first floor of the building by 1998 and, therefore, the levy of luxury tax under Sec. 5A of the Act, which was applicable only to residential buildings having a plinth area of 278.7 Sq. metres and completed on or after 1-4-1999, would not be attracted to the building constructed by her. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P3 assessment order and Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P3 order. In Ext.P5 order, the 2nd respondent finds that the production of receipts to show that the property tax had been paid for the year 1998-1999 would not suffice to establish that the construction of the building was completed in 1998.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the 3rd respondent had issued a statutory notice to the petitioner for hearing in connection with the building tax. During the course of the hearing in 2000, the petitioner had conceded that the construction of the building was not yet completed. It is relying on the statement of the petitioner that the construction of the building was not completed even in the year 2000, that the 2nd respondent proceeded to reject the revision petition preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) I heard Sri. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt. Lilly, the learned Government Pleader for respondents.