IMPORTANT POINT
Each floor of a building owned by different persons is to be treated separately for luxury tax assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act, emphasizing distinct ownership and construction.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, along with her husband Sri.K.Janardhanan, was holding certain landed properties. In the said landed property, which was lying contiguous, the husband constructed a building, a portion of which was reckoned as a residential building and the balance as non-residential. Such construction was completed by the husband in the year 2000. It is stated that the petitioner obtained a separate building permit for construction of the first floor over the ground floor constructed by the husband as above, from the Panchayat. On the basis of the said building permit, the petitioner herein constructed the first floor, having three rooms. The said construction, it is stated, was over by the year 2010. The petitioner points out that the portion constructed by the husband and the portion constructed by the petitioner were being numbered separately by the Panchayat and property tax was also collected by the Panchayat separately, relying on Ext.P1 series of receipts issued by the Panchayat in favour of the wife and Ext.P2 series of receipts in the name of the husband. It is further pointed out that electricity connection is also obtained separately by the husband and wife with reference to Ext.P3 series and Ext.P4 series.

2. However, the constructed building as above, consisting of the ground floor constructed by the husband and the first floor constructed by the wife, was subjected to luxury tax assessment under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short). The said order was the subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority directed a reconsideration, taking into account the fact that a portion of the building was being used as residential and the balance as non-residential. Subsequent to the above remand, the assessment was completed afresh by the assessing authority by reckoning the constructed building as a single unit after reducing the non-residential portion, on account of which the constructed area exceeded the limit prescribed under Section 5A of the Act – 278.7 m2.

3. The said revised assessment was the subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Authority, and since the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, a further revision was moved before the District Collector. The 3rd respondent District Collector issued Ext.P5 order, finding as under;

“After going through the records placed before me and the reports of the Deputy Collector (RR) and Senior Superintendent (Suit), it is obvious that the building is single entity though it exists in the land of 2 persons Smt.Balamani and Sri.Janardanan. Being husband and wife, Sri.Janardhanan and Smt.Balamani are using the building as a single entity. As per the Panchayath records, the rooms in ground floor of the building is in the name of Janardanan and the rooms in first floor of the building is in the name of Smt.Balamani. But it is not as per the Land document. The building has been given permit as residential building from panchayat. Hence this building cannot be treated as Other Building. Only one room is non residential. That was already assessed as “Other Building”. Hence the balance portion of the building is to be treated as a single residential building. As the plinth area of the residential portion exceeds the limit of luxury tax, Revision petitioner is liable to pay the Luxury Tax. Revision Petition is hereby rejected. The Tahsildar Hosdurg should take urgent steps to realize the luxury Tax from the revision petitioner. The Revision Petition is disposed of as above.”

Thus, the revision petition filed by the petitioner stood rejected by the impugned order at Ext.P5.

4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent. In the said counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent points out that the assessment completed pursuant to the remand as above is after carrying out necessary enquiries in that regard, and there is no illegality in the finalisation of the assessmen