Verification of plinth area for tax assessment is within the authority's purview, overriding prior declarations if substantiated by factual measurement.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

The petitioner is the owner of a residential building, and this writ petition is filed by her, being aggrieved by the building tax assessment in respect of the said building.

2. According to the petitioner, the total plinth area of the building is 270.17 Square Meters, which is the plinth area mentioned in the Occupancy Certificate issued by the Changanasserry Municipality. In Ext.P1, the plinth area of 270.17 Square meters was approved by the Town Planning Officer as well. However, later, Ext.P2 proceedings were issued by the 4^th respondent, imposing luxury tax under Section 5(a) of the Kerala Building Tax Act and also making a demand of Rs.2,460/- which is the remaining amount payable based on the revision of one time building tax payable by the petitioner. The assessment of the luxury tax was made, in view of the fact that in the measurement, the plinth area of the building was found to be more than 278.7 Square meters, therefore it was found that the petitioner is liable to pay luxury tax.

3. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, a statutory appeal was submitted before the 3^rd respondent and it culminated in Ext.P3. As per the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, the building of the petitioner, was remeasured on 20.07.2017 in the presence of the petitioner and her lawyer, and in such remeasurement, the total plinth area of the building was found to be 297.34 Square meters. In the light of the above, the appeal was submitted. Even though Ext.P5 revision petition was submitted before the 2^nd respondent, the District Collector, the same was rejected as per Ext.P6. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, challenging the assessment and the demand.

4. A counter affidavit has been submitted that 4^th respondent reiterating the view taken by them in the impugned orders.

5. I have heard, Sri.Thomas Abraham (Nilackappillil), the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Shanker, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The challenge raised by the petitioner is against the assessment of building tax and luxury tax, by mainly placing reliance upon Ext.P1 Occupancy Certificate, wherein it is stated that, the total plinth area of the building is only 270.62 Square meters. According to the petitioner, therefore the assessment of building tax by taking the plinth area as 297.34 is not at all justifiable. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, as per Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, the manner in which the plinth area has to be determined is contemplated. The said provisions 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.”

7. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that, even though the said provision contemplates that plinth area of a building for the purpose of this Act, shall be the plinth area of the building as specified in the plan approved by the local authority, the said provision also enables the assessing authority to verify the same. This would lead to a conclusion that, the statutory stipulation contained in Section 6 is not merely to accept the plinth area mentioned in the approved plan as such, but the same is subject to verification of the assessing authority. In other words, it shall be open to the assessing authority to verify whether the plinth area mentioned in the approved plan is correct or not.

8. In this case, according to the respondents the plinth area was determined after conducting the measurement of the building. Moreover, during the pendency of the appeal, based on the direction issued by the 3^rd respondent, the building was remeasured, by the Senior Superintendent in the presence of the petitioner and her lawyer. In