The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P13 order passed by the first respondent and Ext.P14 demand notice issued consequent thereto. In Ext.P13 order of the first respondent, reliance is placed on an inspection report of the Deputy Tahsildar, which showed that an area of 438.2M2 was assessable as the residential area and 273.2M2 was assessable as other area for the purpose of building tax. The entire area of the building was also taken into account for the purpose of levy of luxury tax. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the different floors of the building, having been completed at different points in time, the assessment of building tax and luxury tax had also to be done taking into account the said fact and by that yardstick, the levy of luxury tax, that took into account the entire plinth area of building, was illegal.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the building tax assessment has been completed against the petitioner by considering only that portion of the building, that was constructed after the cut off date mentioned in the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Only the plinth area attributable to the construction effected after the cut off date has been taking into consideration for the purpose of building tax. As for the levy of luxury tax, in so far as some of the constructions had been effected after 1st April 1999, the entire plinth area of the building was taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether the plinth area of the building exceeded 278.7M2 for the purpose of taking the charge of luxury tax. It is the case of the petitioner that since a portion of the building has been let out for commercial purpose and only a small portion of the building is used for residential purposes, the entire plinth area of the building cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining the liability to luxury tax. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ayshakunji v. Tahsildar and Another (2012 (4) KHC (1)). The petitioner has also not made out any other ground, warranting an interference with Ext.P13 order passed by the Assessing Authority, in this matter.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails, and it is dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE lsn