Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
CLARAMMA JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
THE THAHASILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 45390 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SHIBU VARGHESE
For the Respondents: Shri.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR
Timeliness of challenging tax demands in administrative law under Kerala Building Tax.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the orders Exts.P5 and P6 requiring the payment of luxury tax as per Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax, 1975, citing delays as a reason for maintaining the challenge. The Court found the challenge considerably belated and therefore dismissed the writ petition, allowing future challenges against any further tax demands. The Court stated, 'I do not find any merit in this writ petition, and hence it is dismissed.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges luxury tax orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. court finds challenge delayed and dismisses. (Para 2) |
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 petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner in raising any challenge against any further demand of luxury tax.
