JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a residential building, and this writ petition is submitted being aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, by which the petitioner was imposed with the liability to pay the luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax, 1975 . Even though various contentions have been raised with regard to the sustainability of Exts.P5 and P6. It is to be noted that Ext.P5 order is dated 15.11.2016 and Ext.P6 order is dated 03.1.2019.

2. The challenge was raised much belatedly after six years of Ext.P6. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge, as it is highly belated and no justifiable reasons are shown for the delay in filing this writ petition.

In such circumstances I do not find any merit in this writ petition, and hence it is dismissed. However, it is clarified that since the demand of luxury tax is to be made annually, the petitioner will have cause of action to challenge the subsequent demand orders by invoking the statutory remedy. Therefore, the rejection of this writ peti