The measurement of the plinth area determined liability for luxury tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, with factual disputes not subject to writ jurisdiction.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the owner of a residential building.

Initially, the plinth area of the building was 136.64 Sq. Mt. and thereafter, when the construction was completely over by 2019, the building plinth area of the total building was 269.20 Sq. Mt. However,, in the building tax assessment, the area highlighted was more than what is specified in Sec.5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act and consequently, luxury tax was imposed upon the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of the Tahsildar, by which the liability of luxury tax was imposed upon the petitioner.

2. The petitioner challenged the same by submitting an appeal before the 3^rd respondent, which resulted in Ext.P6. Before passing Ext.P6, a further measurement of the property was ordered, and in the said order also, the total plinth area was found to be in excess of the limit contemplated under Sec.5A of the Act and hence, the appeal was rejected. Challenging the same, a revision petition was submitted before the District Collector, which resulted in Ext.P13. In Ext.P13 also, a further measurement was ordered, and it was found the total plinth area of the building comes to 280.24 Sq. Mt. and hence, the revision petition was rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner has submitted a revision petition before the Land Revenue Commissioner, which is now pending consideration. As the same has not been disposed of, the petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P13 order.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that, the challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P13 cannot be sustained. This is particularly because, the question to be decided, relates to the exact plinth area of the residential building of the petitioner. In fact, for the purpose of ascertaining the same, on two occasions, measurement was taken; firstly, when the appeal was pending consideration, which resulted in Ext.P6 and secondly, before Ext.P13 order in revision was passed.

3. In both the said measurements, the total plinth area was found to be in excess of the ceiling contemplated under Sec.5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act . As far as the further revision filed against Ext.P13 is concerned, it is to be noted that, the same is pending consideration before the Land Revenue Commissioner, who is not a competent authority to entertain such a revision petition.

4. As regards the challenge raised by the petitioner, it is a pure question of fact and the said question was answered by the appellate as well as revisional authority, after conducting separate inspections/measurements. Therefore, I do not find any scope to interfere with the same, in a writ jurisdiction where, the scope of challenge is very limited. As mentioned above, the dispute involved is a pure factual question which cannot be gone into in a writ petition.

In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it is clarified that, the dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from challenging any demands for luxury tax in future, in case the petitioner alters the plinth area in such a manner as to reduce the same to bring it below the limit mentioned in section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act , 1975.