MATHEW S/O JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the learned Single Judge is impugned by the writ petitioner in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant/writ petitioner had constructed a building, the approved plan of which is produced at Exhibit P2. The total plinth area, as seen from Exhibit P2, is 297.74 square metres. One of the contentions raised by the appellant is that in determining the plinth area for the purpose of assessment, Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 [for brevity "Building Tax Act"] speaks of reference to the plinth area of the building as specified in the plan approved by the local authority or such other authorities. Hence, for the purpose of determining the plinth area, necessarily the plan approved by the local authority has to be imported into the Act. The plinth area so computed will lead to certain exemptions; inter alia of the car porch area. The appellant has also one other contention that in granting the exemption, both the car porches of the appellant have to be so exempted based on Circular No.REV.SC3/134/2017-REV dated 11.09.2017, which was issued in the wake of the judgment of this Court in Vinu C.Chacko v. Tahsildar, 2012 4 KerLT 171.

(3.) On facts, suffice it to notice that the appellant had constructed a building having a plinth area of 297.74 square metres; in which there were two car porches on the two sides of the building. When excluding the area of the car porches, the plinth area would come to only 269.98 square metres; which would not come within the ambit of Section 5A of the Building Tax Act, which imposes luxury tax on a building which has a plinth area of 278.7 square metres or more. The learned Government Pleader refers to a judgment of this Court in Philip Philip v. District Collector, 2017 1 KerLT 578, affirmed in W.A.No.810 of 2017 by judgment dated 29.05.2017, which negatives any reference to the definition of 'plinth area' as available in the Kerala Building Rules. However, we are of the opinion that the question of law need not be looked into, since on facts and the admitted plinth area we find the appellant to be coming within the charge of luxury tax under Section 5A of the Building Tax Act.