N.K. Sodhi, C.J.

Whether the provisions of Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) levying a luxury tax of two thousand rupees annually on all residential buildings having a plinth area of 278.7 square meters or more and completed on or after April 01, 1999 are unconstitutional? This is the short question, which arises for consideration in this writ appeal directed against the judgment dated February 18, 2003 delivered by a learned Single Judge whereby the provision has been held to be constitutionally valid.

2. Since the issued involved is purely legal, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated all the submissions made before the learned Single Judge but has laid more emphasis on three contentions. It is urged that the assessment of luxury tax on the basis of plinth area is illegal and that the cut off date of April 01, 1999 as fixed is arbitrary and that the classification of luxury buildings and non-luxury buildings is also arbitrary because there is no slab system and the same rate of tax is charged for all luxury buildings howsoever big they may be.

3. Section 5A of the Act which is under challenge is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:

“5A. Charge of luxury tax:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be charged a luxury tax of two thousand rupees annually on all residential buildings having a plinth area of 278.7 Square Meters or more and completed on or after the 1st day of April, 1999.

(2) The luxury tax assessed under this Act shall be paid in advance on or before the 31st day of March every year.”

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Legislature was not justified in levying luxury tax on residential buildings under the Act when it has enacted another legislation for the levy and collection of tax on luxuries namely- the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (for short the 1976 Act). The argument is that luxury tax on residential buildings is levied under the Act whereas that tax on other luxuries is levied and collected under the 1976 Act, which is not permissible. It is urged that tax on all luxuries should have been levied under one comprehensive legislation and that such a tax could not be levied on different items under different enactments.

4. The argument is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that the State Legislature has the power to levy tax on luxuries under Entry 62 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which reads as under:

“62. Taxes on luxuries including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling.”

Under this Entry, the Legislature can levy taxes on luxuries. It does not restrict the Legislature to levy such a tax under one Statute only. Different luxuries can be brought to tax under one and the same Statute or under different enactments. So long as the Legislature has the power to levy such a tax under Entry 62, it may exercise that power by levying the tax under the same Statute or under different Statutes. The argument that the Legislature is bound to levy luxury tax on all luxuries under one comprehensive legislation cannot be accepted. The Act was enacted in the year 1975 with a view to levy a non-recurring tax on buildings. This tax was levied under Entry 49 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule, which gives power to the State Legislature to levy taxes on lands and buildings. The Legislature in its wisdom inserted Section 5A in the Act by Act 23 of 1999 with effect from 1-4-1999 and levied luxury tax of two thousand rupees annually on all residential buildings having a plinth area of 278.7 square metres or more and completed on or after April 01, 1999. There is nothing wrong in the Legislature levying luxury tax under Entry 62 and building tax under Entry 49 by the same enactment namely the Act because it has the power to levy both the taxes. Further, there is nothing wrong wit