The court upheld the authority's determination of tax based on factual findings and clarified the limitations of jurisdiction under Article 226.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner constructed a residential building. Based on the return submitted by the petitioner, Ext.P2 assessment order was passed by the Tahsildar, wherein, the total area shown was 333.25 Sq.M and the building tax under Kerala Building Tax Act , 1975 was imposed. As against the same, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, mainly pointing out that the total plinth area referred to above, included the area of truss work, which contains zero landing area that is not usable for any practical purposes. After considering the same, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, setting aside the order of the Tahsildar and directing re-consideration of the same.

2. Consequently, Ext.P4 order was passed by the Tahsildar, wherein, the total plinth area was found to be 324.1 Sq.M and the total tax was fixed based on the same. In addition to the above, the luxury tax under Section 5A was also imposed. However, in the meantime, as the Revenue Divisional Officer, while passing Ext.P3, rejected the contention of the petitioner with regard to the zero landing area, revision was filed by the petitioner. The said revision culminated in Ext.P6. Before passing Ext.P6, the said building was inspected by the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Punalur along with Senior Superintendent of Inspection and Vigilance wing of the Office of the District Collector, in the presence of the wife and son of the petitioner. It is also discernible from Ext.P6 that, such an inspection was conducted with the permission of the petitioner. After conducting such inspection, the total plinth area was found to be 335.90 Sq.M.

3. The question raised by the petitioner with regard to the zero landing area and the no usable portion of the said building was also considered, but the report of the inspection is to the effect that, the entire area of 335.9 Sq.M can be used or residential purpose and hence it is liable to be taxed. Considering the same, the District Collector passed Ext.P6 order, confirming the findings and reassessing the total plinth area as 335.90 Sq.M. Consequently, the tax was directed to be revised and the imposition of the luxury tax was also confirmed. Challenging the said order this writ petition is filed.

4. I have heard Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Reshmitha R.Chandran, learned Sr.Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the assessment of the property tax, taking note of the plinth area of the building as 335.90 Sq.M is incorrect and the petitioner also raised serious contention with regard to the zero landing area, which cannot be used for any practical purposes. As far as those issues are concerned, the statutory authorities after conducting inspection of the said building and taking note of the measurement in the presence of the authorized representative of the petitioner, arrived at a specific finding with regard to the total extent of the building and also as to the usability of it. This being a factual finding, cannot be interfered with in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is particularly because, the measurement was taken during the process of hearing of the revision petition and it was by experts in this regard.

Therefore, I do not find any scope to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that, such a factual enquiry is not contemplated in such a proceeding. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly dismissed.