Point of Law: Section 5 of Act deals with “charge of building tax.”

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records relating to Exts.P2 to P4 and to quash the same.

2. Facts:

The petitioner is the owner of 17 independent buildings having separate building numbers. After completion of construction of five out of 17 buildings, assessment was completed separately in the year 2009 as per Ext.P1. Thereafter, on completion of construction of the remaining 12 independent buildings, as per Ext.P2 assessment was made reckoning the 17 buildings as a single unit. Challenging this, though the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, it was dismissed by Ext.P3 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner filed a revision before the third respondent, which was also dismissed as per Ext.P4 proceedings. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P2 to P4.

3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit, contending that the Village Officer submitted a proposal before the first respondent to assess building tax of the resort owned by the petitioner in the name and style “Rain Country Resort, Lakkidi” which was having a total plinth area of 1471.78 sq. mtr. Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner and on appearance, the petitioner requested to assess tax on each building separately. On verification of the documents produced by the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner himself is the Managing Director of the said resort and the buildings in the premises are owned by him. It is based on the said findings that building tax was assessed treating the 17 buildings as single unit existing in the premises of the resort. It is further contended that the 17 buildings are owned by a single owner, the petitioner, and the said buildings are used as villas for renting out on daily basis to tourists. It is pointed out that those buildings are functioning under a single administration and form part of the hotel and functionally integrated as a single unit. Hence, according to the first respondent, the 17 buildings of the petitioner were assessed to tax as a single unit and accordingly, assessment has been made as per Section 5(5) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (for short “the Act”). The first respondent relied on a decision of this Court in Lalitha vs. State of Kerala, 1994 (2) KLT 66, wherein it is held that a hotel complex, which may consist of numerous buildings like cottages, kitchen complex, shopping arcade and so on or a factory complex with its appendages, may constitute one unit for purposes of assessment. Therefore, according to the first respondent, the assessment made is legally sustainable and the writ petition is only to be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 17 buildings were constructed in the property belonging to the petitioner as independent buildings, which are separately numbered and structurally separated and going by the definition of the term 'building' in Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, the assessment has to be made separately. Referring to Section 5(1) of the Act, the learned counsel submits that tax shall be charged based on the plinth area at the rate specified in Schedule-I on every building, the construction of which is completed on or after the appointed day; and since all the buildings, though constructed in the property belonging to the petitioner, are structurally different and constructed separately, assessment has to be done separately. Referring to a Full Bench decision of this Court in District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad and Others vs. V.K. Sreekumari Kunjamma, 2011 (1) KHC 133, wherein the issue considered was whether a building with two residential apartments owned by a same person should be assessed as a single building or should be assessed as two buildings treating each residential apartment as a separate building in the n