UMMERKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no merit in this original petition. The building in question was constructed in the year 1984. Petitioner was one of the two co-owners of the building, the other co-owner being his sister's husband, one vazhayil Mammootty. The petitioner has since transferred his share in the building to his sister, by deed of assignment marked Ext. Pl dated June 3,1993.

(2.) THE petitioner filed return for purpose of assessment to tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). THE assessment proceedings dragged on, and eventually the petitioner was called upon to appear before the assessing authority, namely the second respondent, on September 22, 1993. By that time, the petitioner had transferred his share in the building to his sister as mentioned earlier. He took up the stand before the assessing authority that he was no longer liable for payment of tax under the Act, as he had ceased to be the owner of the building. This was not acceptable to the assessing authority, who completed the assessment ext. PS on September 23,1993 and made demand by Ext. P4 for an amount of rs. 12,000/- by way of tax payable in four quarterly instalments commencing from october 23, 1993. Petitioner did not challenge the assessment in appeal, though an appeal is provided by S. I 1 of the Act; nor did he make payment of the tax due. He has filed this writ petition when he was faced with proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and the notice ext. PS was issued to him for payment of the first instalment of the tax which had been fallen due on October 23, 1993. THE petitioner states that he made a representation Ext. P6 to the assessing authority seeking to rectify a mistake in the assessment, under S. 15 of the Act, the mistake alleged being that he is only a co-owner, that the other co-owner Vazhayil Mammootty should also be made liable, and that, in any case, the tax should be recovered from this Mammootty and his wife Rukhia, the petitioner's sister.

(3.) PETITIONER was admittedly the owner of the building. He had constructed it. The taxable event under the Act is the construction of the building. It is the completion of the construction that gives rise to the liability under the Act. The liability is cast the moment the construction of the building is complete. It is the owner, (which includes the title holder of the property at the time of completion of the construction), who is called upon by S. 7 to file the return within two months of the date of completion of the construction. The liability under the Act is thus fastened on the person who completed the construction. As pointed out earlier, others also are made habile, including the current owner, but the liability of the original owner is not in any manner discharged by his transferring the building. The petitioner thus became liable for payment of the building tax due as soon as the building was constructed in 1984. The delay on the part of the assessing authority in quantifying the tax does not absolve the petitioner of his liability under S. 5 of the Act. It is nowhere provided that a person on whom a liability has been cast by S. 5 on his completing the construction of the building and who is obliged to file the return under S. 7, is exonerated from liability the moment he transfers the building. There is no warrant for this proposition anywhere in the provisions of the Act. I am therefore unable to accept the petitioner's contention that merely because he transferred the building nine years after the construction was over, he stands exonerated from liability by virtue of that transfer. The original petition is therefore without any merit. The petitioners liability continues to subsist despite the transfer effected by him by Ext. Pl.