RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these Writ Petitions are connected, they are disposed of by a common Judgment. The case of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 22355/04, in brief, is as follows:

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in short, is that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay luxury tax. S.5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act reads as follows:

(3.) The date mentioned is 01/04/1999. Petitioner does not dispute that the total plinth area of the building as originally constructed along with the additions made to it is such that his contention if otherwise rejected, he is liable to luxury tax. His contention is that in order to make a building exigible to luxury tax, the entire building must have been constructed and completed after 01/04/1999. He had constructed a house in the year 1992-1993. S.5A has no retrospective operation, it is contended, and therefore, excluding the portion as it existed prior to 01/04/1999, the size of the building was such that it did not attract the provisions of S.5A of the Act runs the contention. He relied on the decisions of this Court in Abdul Rasheed v. Tahsildar, 2005 KHC 714 : 2005 (2) KLT 819 and Gopalakrishnan v. Tahsildar, 1995 KHC 252 : 1995 (2) KLT 37 : ILR 1995 (3) Ker. 718. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader would submit that there was no case of separate unit. Petitioner has paid the building tax. In such circumstances, it is indeed exigible to luxury tax, it is contended. In Gopalakrishnan v. Tahsildar, 1995 KHC 252 : 1995 (2) KLT 37 : ILR 1995 (3) Ker. 718, this Court held that 'if an assessment has already been made and completed, the assessee cannot be subjected to re-assessment unless the Statute permits that to be done. In other words, where an assessment had already been completed prior to coming into force of the amendment, re-assessment under the amended provision will be bad.'