Kerala High Court Dismisses Challenge To Luxury Tax Assessment | Plinth Area Verification By Assessing Authority Mandatory Under Section 6 | Mere Occupancy Certificate Not Conclusive
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that the assessment of building tax and luxury tax made by the assessing authority based on physical measurement of the plinth area could not be interfered with. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment and demand orders. It directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to pay the assessed amounts in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 15.07.2025, failing which the respondents were at liberty to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings under law. The petition was disposed of with these directions after considering the submissions and records produced.
The petitioner, Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam, filed the writ petition challenging the building tax assessment and luxury tax demand issued by the Tahsildar and Assessing Officer, Changanasserry, under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioner is the owner of a residential building situated at Vazhappally East Village, Kottayam District. She contended that the total plinth area of the building was only 270.17 square metres, as approved by the Town Planning Officer in the Occupancy Certificate issued by Changanasserry Municipality and marked as Exhibit P1.
However, the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar and Assessing Officer, issued Exhibit P2 proceedings imposing luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act and demanding payment of ₹2,460 as remaining tax liability based on the revised one-time building tax. The assessment was made on the basis that during measurement the plinth area was found to be more than 278.7 square metres, thereby attracting liability for luxury tax.
Aggrieved by Exhibit P2, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam, who remeasured the building on 20.07.2017 in the presence of the petitioner and her lawyer. The total plinth area was found to be 297.34 square metres. The appeal culminated in Exhibit P3 order, which confirmed the assessment based on the revised plinth area. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Collector, Kottayam, which was rejected as per Exhibit P6 order.
In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged these assessment proceedings contending that the plinth area should have been accepted as per the Occupancy Certificate issued by the Municipality, which recorded it as 270.62 square metres. The petitioner argued that the reassessment based on physical measurement ignoring the approved plan was arbitrary and unsustainable.
A counter affidavit was filed by the fourth respondent reiterating the stand taken in the impugned orders. The government pleader produced the sketch prepared during remeasurement, along with a memo dated 05.03.2025, showing that the ground floor had a plinth area of 260.72 square metres, from which 16.80 square metres of car porch area was deducted, resulting in a ground floor plinth area of 199.92 square metres. The first floor was measured at 97.42 square metres, leading to a total plinth area of 297.34 square metres.
The respondents submitted that under Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, the assessing authority was empowered to verify the plinth area mentioned in the approved plan by the local authority and make an assessment accordingly. The physical verification was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and her counsel, and the calculation was based on actual measurement at site.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. recorded that the challenge raised by the petitioner was against the assessment of building tax and luxury tax, mainly relying upon Exhibit P1 Occupancy Certificate, which stated that the total plinth area of the building was only 270.62 square metres.
According to the petitioner, the assessment of building tax by taking the plinth area as 297.34 square metres was not justifiable.
He observed that the crucial aspect to be noticed was that, as per Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, the manner in which the plinth area had to be determined was contemplated.
The provision stated that the plinth area of a building for the purposes of the Act would be the plinth area specified in the plan approved by the local authority or other authorities specified by the government and verified by the assessing authority in the prescribed manner.
He stated that it was evident from this provision that even though it contemplated that the plinth area would be as specified in the approved plan, it also enabled the assessing authority to verify the same.
This led to the conclusion that the stipulation under Section 6 was not merely to accept the plinth area mentioned in the approved plan as such, but that it was subject to verification by the assessing authority.
In this case, according to the respondents, the plinth area was determined after measuring the building.
Moreover, during the pendency of the appeal, based on the direction of the third respondent, the building was remeasured by the Senior Superintendent in the presence of the petitioner and her lawyer, and in that measurement the plinth area was found to be 297.34 square metres.
He recorded that since this calculation was specifically made after physically measuring the building in the presence of the petitioner and her lawyer, there was no reason to discard it.
He noted that apart from Exhibit P1 Occupancy Certificate, no other documents were produced by the petitioner to substantiate that the measurement referred to above was erroneous.
He stated that merely because Exhibit P1 Occupancy Certificate recorded the plinth area as 270.62 square metres, it would not by itself lead to a conclusion that the building tax had to be assessed based on the same.
He further observed that Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act contemplated further verification of the plinth area, and in this case such verification had been conducted and it was found that the total plinth area was 297.34 square metres.
He concluded that this being a factual aspect, there was no scope for further scrutiny in the matter.
The court directed: “Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, considering the fact that, this writ petition was pending consideration since 2023, the petitioner is permitted to pay the amount to be paid as building tax and luxury tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, in six equal monthly instalments commencing from the 15th day of July 2025. In case there is default in making any such instalments, it shall be open for the respondents to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Thomas Abraham (Nilackappillil), Shri S. Abhilash Vishnu, Smt. K.R. Monisha, Advocates
For the Respondents: Shri Arun Ajay Sankar, Government Pleader
Case Title: Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:43206
Case Number: WP(C) No. 3826 of 2023
Bench: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
