IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MANJULA CHELLUR, A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ.
K.I. Rajappan - Appellant
Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam - Respondent
WA. No. 1446 of 2012 in WPC 10854 of 2012
Decided On : 01-08-2012
luxury tax - measurement of plinth area - interpretation of Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act
Fact of the Case:
The case revolved around the measurement of the plinth area for the computation of luxury tax under Section 5(a) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The appellant disputed the calculation of the plinth area, particularly the inclusion of the area known as 'Varanda' or sit out ('Chavidi').
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, which specifies the areas to be included and excluded for determining the plinth area. The court concluded that the sit out or 'Varanda' should be considered as an erection or structure appurtenant to the building and should be included in the measurement of the plinth area for luxury tax purposes.
Issues: Dispute over the measurement of plinth area for luxury tax computation
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, which determined the inclusion of the sit out or 'Varanda' in the measurement of the plinth area for luxury tax purposes.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, affirming the inclusion of the sit out or 'Varanda' in the measurement of the plinth area for luxury tax computation.
Manjula Chellur, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader. The entire question revolves round the measurement of the plinth area, which has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of luxury tax as contemplated under Section 5(a) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. As could be seen from the records, originally the total plinth area is reckoned as 306.07 M2. As it was in excess of the minimum extent fixed under the provisions of the above Act, i.e., 278.7 M2, luxury tax was imposed. With the intervention of the Court, again there was reconsideration of the matter after effecting remeasurement. Even after remeasurement, the actual plinth area of the building was fixed as 285.52 M2 and the same was liable for the tax by virtue of Section 5A. According to learned counsel for the appellant, even this calculation of measurement of plinth area at 285.52 M2 is erroneous, as they have taken into consideration the area known as 'Varanda' or sit out ('Chavidi'). Therefore, there is miscalculation or wrong calculation.
2. It is not in dispute that Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act provides which are the areas to be taken into account for determining the measurement of plinth area and also areas which have to be excluded from the plinth area while determining the area of measurement of the plinth area. Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act reads as follows:
6. Determination of plinth area.- The plinth area of a building for the purposes of this Act, shall be the plinth area of the building as specified in the plan approved by the local authority or such other authorities as may be specified by Government in this behalf and verified by the assessing authority in such manner as may be prescribed.
Provided that the plinth area of a garage or any other erection or structure appurtenant to a residential building used for storage of firewood or for any non- residential purpose shall not be taken into account for determining the plinth area of that building.
Admittedly, the disputed portion is not used as a garage or a place, where storage of firewood is undertaken, nor any non- residential activity is carried on. In that view of the matter, as it is a part of the house, especially being attached to the residential portion as a sit out in the ground floor and the balcony in the first floor, it has to be considered as an erection or structure appurtenant to the building, but not used for storage of firewood or non-residential purpose.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the sit out or 'Varanda' (chavadi) has to be determined while arriving at the measurement of the plinth area. We find nothing in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant warranting interference.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.