P P VARGHESE Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original petition was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P5 order of assessment dated 18-7-1996 passed under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 levying building tax of Rs. 2,13,473 on the petitioner in respect of his building No. KP-VI/279A, B, C and D. The building was constructed on a land in R. S. No. 178/1 and 178/17 in Block No. 20 of Kalpetta Village, title of which stands in the name of the petitioner.

(2.) Revenue Inspector, Kalpetta by reference C4.3/91 dated 25-6-1996 had furnished a pro forma report in respect of the building and also submitted a return in Form II giving the measurement of the building as 2,070.61 M2. Case was then posted for hearing and notice was given to the petitioner. Petitioner appeared on 17-7-1996 and objected to the same. Following are the objections raised by the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the building is owned by four different and distinct persons and the cost of constructions was also met by them jointly. Counsel further submitted that assessment should have been made separately on each of the owner as envisaged in Explanation.2 to S.2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Referring to S.2(k) of the Act, counsel submitted that in the case of building referred to in clause (e) plinth area will have to be calculated separately. Reference was also made to the Bench decision of this Court in Kurian George v. Tahsildar, 1995 (2) KLT 457 and submitted that when a building is constructed, consisting of separate and distinct apartments or flats, jointly by a group of persons, each flat or apartment shall be treated as separate building. Counsel also made reference to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Lissy v. Tahsildar, 2000 (3) KLT 497 and submitted that S.2(e) does not make any difference between commercial or residential building and if part of the building can be used with separate door and with independent access and owned separately, it can be assessed separately. Counsel submitted that the whole building was divided into four buildings and each one is separately owned by different persons and was to be assessed individually. Counsel also submitted that statutory definition of "owner" for the purpose of building tax has also been satisfied in this case since all the four persons are owners of separate portions of the building.