STATE OF KERALA Vs A.P MAMMIKUTTY
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Case number: C.A. No.-001640-001640 / 2015
Diary number: 11393 / 2014
Advocates: LIZ MATHEW Vs
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1640 of 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 12269 OF 2014)
State of Kerala & Ors. ... Appellants
Versus
A.P. Mammikutty ... Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
The respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under Article 226 of the
Constitution assailing the demand of luxury tax imposed on
a building that consists of 13 residential apartments. The
Tahasildar who is the competent statutory authority under
the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (for brevity “the Act”)
imposed luxury tax on the building on the base of Section
5A of the Act vide order dated 1.10.2003 in Ref
Page 2
B4-6435/03 whereby he had measured the plinth area of all
the residential apartments and computed the tax treating
the same as a singular building.
2. The learned Single Judge opined that the levy of luxury
tax of the entire building on the owner was not permissible
under the Act, for the scheme is to levy luxury tax for each
residential apartment, plinth area of which is in excess of
the limit provided under Section 5A of the Act. It has been
further ruled by the learned Single Judge that if the plinth
area of each residential apartment was below 278.7 sq.
mts., there was no scope of levying luxury tax. And if the
concerned Tahsildar had found that the plinth area of the
residential apartments in toto was above 278.7 sq. metres,
the luxury tax for such apartments could be demanded, the
writ petition was disposed of with the direction that
Tahsildar would verify the plinth area of each residential
apartment and levy luxury tax only for such of the
residential apartment plinth area of which was in excess of
the limit provided under Section 5A of the Act. The relevant
part of the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge is
reproduced below:-
2
Page 3
“Even though petitioner is the owner of the entire building, luxury tax is leviable only if the plinth area of each residential apartment is in excess of the limit provided under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Tahsildar has demanded luxury tax by clubbing the plinth area of various residential apartments. This is not permissible under the Act and the scheme is to levy luxury tax for each residential apartment, plinth area of which is in excess of the limit provided under Section 5A of the Act. If plinth area of each residential apartment is below 278.7 sq. meters then there is no scope for levying luxury tax. However, if Tahsildar on inspection finds that the plinth area of any residential apartment is above 278.7 sq. metres, then he can demand luxury tax for such of the apartment or apartments.”
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.06.2008 the
State of Kerala and its functionaries preferred writ appeal
No. 2150 of 2008. The Division Bench referred to Section
5A of the Act, dictionary clause contained in Section 2,
especially, Section 2 (k) and the Explanation II to Clause (e)
of Section 2 and came to hold that if there is one building
having more than one floor and they are inter-connected
with each other and if one floor is of no use without the
existence of another floor, then it has to be considered as
one building. The Division Bench further proceeded to state
that as there were 13 independent flats or apartments and
3
Page 4
each of the building could be used on its own without
reference to the other apartment, the question of taking the
measurement of another building to calculate the plinth
area would not arise. The conclusion recorded by the
Division Bench reads as follows:-
“For the purpose of calculating the plinth area, if the intention of the legislature was to adopt the entire Explanation (2) to clause (e) even with reference to proviso to 2(k) there was no need to mention the aggregate area where a building has more than one floor. The very reference to more than one floor of a building would explicitly mean, if read along with the proviso that whether the building is a single unit so far as functional use is concerned, or separate units, so far as functional utility of the building. If there is one building having more than one floor and they are interconnected with each other, in other words, if one floor is of no use without the existence of another floor, then it has to be considered as one building. Therefore, if there are 13 independent flats or apartments and if each of the building could be used on its own without reference to the other apartment, the question of taking the measurement of another building to calculate the plinth area would not arise.”
4. The singular question that emanates for consideration
is whether under the provisions of the Act, the revenue
authorities are entitled to levy the demand of luxury tax
from the respondent by clubbing the plinth area of the
apartments which are 13 in number or the plinth area of
4
Page 5
the individual apartment should be taken into consideration
for levy of the said impost.
5. Relying on Section 2(e) of the Act, it is contended by
the learned counsel for the State that on a plain reading of
Explanation II, it is vivid that a building consisting of
different apartments or flats can be deemed to be a separate
building, if two conditions, namely, that the apartments or
flats are owned by different persons; and the cost of
construction of the building has been met by all such
owners jointly, are satisfied. The submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants is that the ownership of all the 13
apartments rests with the respondent himself and the cost
of construction having been singularly borne by him, the
twin conditions enshrined under the Explanation II are not
satisfied, and, therefore, it is impermissible to treat the
individual apartments of the building as different buildings.
Learned counsel would emphasise that the situation
envisaged under Explanation II to Section 2(e) would arise
in a situation where the apartments are pre-booked by the
buyers and whole consideration is paid in advance to the
builder thereby satisfying the condition of separate
5
Page 6
ownership and joint meeting of costs. Reliance has been
placed on Section 5A of the Act and other definitions under
Section 2 and on that basis, it is urged that the plinth area
as prescribed is far excess of the same inasmuch as the
residential portion of the building is 590.4 sq.mts.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent is that the Explanation II to Section 2(e) has no
application for the levy of luxury tax, for it is only applicable
for the purpose of levy of building tax. It is argued by him
that levy of luxury tax is only for a residential building and
the reference to building in Explanation II in Section 2(e)
does not apply to a residential building. Learned counsel
has drawn distinction between “residential building” and a
“building” by drawing our attention to Section 2(l) of the Act.
It is propounded by him that none of the 13 apartments
individually have the plinth area of more than 278.7 sq.
mts. and hence, the proviso to Section 5A of the Act is not
applicable to the present case. It is contended that demand
has to be made for the residential apartments and not for
the owner who is holding the whole unit. Elaborating the
said stand, it is submitted that there cannot be clubbing of
6
Page 7
the residential apartments together for the purpose of
imposition of luxury tax.
7. To appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to
extract the relevant part of Section 2(e), which defines
“building”. It is as under:-
“ “Building” means a house, out-house, garage or any other structure, or part thereof, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, metal or other material but does not include any portable shelter or any shed constructed principally of mud, bamboos, leaves, grass, thatch or a latrine which is not attached to the main structure.
[...]
Explanation II: Where a building consists of different apartments or flats owned by different persons and the cost of construction of the building was met by all such persons jointly, each such apartment or flat shall be deemed to be a separate building.” [Emphasis supplied]
8. Section 2(k) of the Act, which defines the “plinth area”,
reads as follows:-
“plinth area” means the area included in the floor of a building and where a building has more than one floor the aggregate area included in all the floors together: [Emphasis supplied]
Provided that in case of a building referred to in the Explanation (2) to clause (e), the plinth area shall be calculated separately.”
9. Section 2(l) of the Act that defines “residential
7
Page 8
building”, is as follows:-
“‘residential building’ means a building or any other structure or part thereof built exclusively for residential purpose including out-houses or garages appurtenant to the building for the more beneficial enjoyment of the main building but does not include hotels, boarding places, lodges and the like.”
10. Section 5A stipulates charge of luxury tax. The said
provision, being of significance, to deal with the controversy
in hand, is reproduced below:-
“5A. Charge of luxury tax.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be charged a luxury tax of two thousand rupees annually on all residential buildings having a plinth area of 278.7 square metres or more and completed on or after the 1st day of April, 1999.
11. As is evident, the aforesaid provision commences with
a non-obstante clause, and, therefore, has to be given
primacy over the other provisions of the Act. It clearly
provides that luxury tax of Rs.2,000/- is payable by the
owners of all residential buildings constructed on or after
1.4.1999 having plinth area of 278.7 sq.mts. or more. In
the instant case, there is no cavil over the fact that the
building in question consists of three storeys and has 13
apartments/ flats. There is no dispute over the fact that the
8
Page 9
aggregate area is more than 278.7 sq.mts. The controversy
that has emerged is what is meant by the term “residential
building” and whether each of the 13 apartments constitute
a separate building or is a singular building for the purpose
of levy of luxury tax. There is no quarrel over the fact and it
is also manifest that each of the residential apartments has
the plinth area of less than 278.7 sq.mts., but when the
entire plinth area of 13 apartments is taken by applying the
method of clubbing or when the plinth area is aggregated, it
exceeds 278.7 sq.mts. It is the admitted position that the
building has been constructed after 1.4.1999, that is, the
date provided in Section 5A of the Act.
12. Section 2(k) of the Act defines the term “plinth area”
and Section 2(l) of the Act defines the term “residential
building”. We have already quoted the aforesaid provisions.
As we notice, the term “plinth area” means the area
included in the floor of a building and where a building
consists of more than one floor, aggregate area of all the
floors and hence, the plinth area can include the entire
construction, that is, the floor area of a multi-storied
building. The question would still arise whether different
9
Page 10
apartments owned by separate persons can be clubbed and
aggregated in a multi-storied building. The proviso thereto
states that the plinth area of an entire building can be
separated. It is postulated therein that in case of a building
when Explanation II to Section 2(e) is attracted, the plinth
area should be calculated separately. The issue which
requires examination and apposite answer is whether the
Explanation II to Section 2 (e) as an ameliorative and
beneficial provision, restricts and debars calculation and
computations of plinth area of each independent apartment
by different owners in a multi-storied building.
13. Having dealt with the concept of plinth area and its
applicability in the backdrop of the provision, we are
required to scan the definition of “building”. As noted
earlier, “building” has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Act
to mean a house, out-house, garage or any other structure,
or part thereof. The construction can be masonry, bricks,
wood, metal or other material. It does not include portable
shelter or sheds including a latrine which is not attached to
the main structure. Explanation II is the fulcrum that
would determine the question that has emanated for
10
Page 11
consideration in this case. The said Explanation lays the
stipulation that when a building consists of different
apartments or flats owned by different persons and cost of
the building has to be met by all such persons, each
apartment or flat is deemed to be a separate building. On a
dissection of the said provision, it appears that said
Explanation would apply when there is a building; that the
building must consist of different flats or apartments; that
each apartment or flat must be owned by different persons
and cost of construction of the building must have been met
jointly, and in such cases plinth area cannot be clubbed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that
as there has been no contribution of funds at the time of
construction. The Explanation II to Section 2(e) would not
be applicable and the respondent has to be treated as the
sole owner. As we perceive, Explanation II to Section 2(e)
takes care of a situation where the building is constructed
and there are different owners who have paid the purchase
price for their respective apartments. The Explanation
should not be read as a negative provision, detrimental and
fatal to cases where there are separate owners of the
11
Page 12
apartments, for that is not the basic object and purpose
behind the Explanation II to Section 2(e) of the Act. It is a
benevolent and beneficial provision which has not been
enacted to curtail and nullify what is logical and apparent to
reason.
14. In this context, it is imperative to analyse what is
meant by “residential building”. The definition in clause
2(l), means a building or any other structure or part thereof
used for residential purpose and house or out-house or
garage appurtenant to a building for more beneficial
enjoyment. It excludes hotels, boarding places, lodges and
the like. Thus, the expression “residential building” cannot
be interpreted without reference to the term “building” and
Explanation II to Section 2(e) of the Act. Therefore, each
residential building owned by single owner would be
subjected to luxury tax, if it has the plinth area which
exceeds 278.7 sq.mts. It makes no difference whether the
residential building consists of one floor or it is two-storied
or three-storied or consists of multiple flats or apartments.
The entire plinth area in the residential building owned by a
singular owner is required to be aggregated. It is noticeable
12
Page 13
that Section 5A does not refer to aggregate plinth area of all
the floors. The intention of the legislature is apparent that
if a person is the owner of the plinth area of 278.7 sq.mts or
more in one building, even if it consists of separate or
distinct apartments, he would be liable to pay the luxury tax
under Section 5A of the Act. It also becomes further clear
when the definition of “plinth area” in Section 2 (k) is
properly appreciated. It clearly postulates that “plinth area”
means the area included in the floor of the building and
where building has more than one floor aggregate area
included in all the floors are taken together. The proviso to
the said definition lays down that in case of a building
referred to in the Explanation II to clause (e), the “plinth
area” shall be calculated separately. Thus, Section 2(k) has
an insegragable nexus with the definition of “building”.
Explanation II to Section 2(e) which defines “residential
building” only conveys about the building meant for
residential purpose and what it includes. Section 5A is the
charging Section and as has been stated earlier, it
commences with a non-obstante clause. It determines the
annual luxury tax on all residential buildings having a
13
Page 14
plinth area of 278.7 sq. mts. or more. It provides a date for
completion that is 1st April 1999. Though, it does not
provide for aggregate it refers to residential building
definition of which refers to a building. Section 2(k) defines
“plinth area” of the building. Section 5A also includes
“plinth area”. Though the term “aggregate” is not mentioned
but the words therein are buildings having plinth area and
in that context one is required to scan and analyse the
meaning of the term “building” and the “plinth area” as
defined under Section 2(e) and 2(k) respectively. “Plinth
area” as defined clearly provides that when one building has
more than one floor, the aggregate area includes all the
floors. To give an example, a building consisting of four
storeys belongs to a single owner, the aggregate of all the
floors are to be included for calculation of the plinth area
and thereby the computation of the luxury tax has to be
determined as provided under Section 5A. Be it noted, the
proviso to Section 2(k) clearly stipulates that if a building as
referred falls under Explanation II to Section 2(e), the plinth
area shall be calculated separately. The Explanation II
refers to different apartments or flats owned by different
14
Page 15
persons. It also states that the cost of the construction of
the building is to be met by all such persons jointly. This
Explanation, as noted before, is required to be appositely
understood. The learned counsel for the state would submit
that if there is initial booking and the persons have
contributed for the construction definitely there shall be
separate computation. The Explanation II has to be read
with Section 5A which starts with a non-obstante clause.
Section 5A as has been mentioned before refers to
“residential building” having plinth area 278.7 sq. mts. or
more and, therefore, the said provision also takes note of
this definition. In view of the above, the contention
advanced by the learned counsel for the State is difficult to
accept. The definitions have to be given a proper
construction. There can be a case where the owner erects a
multi-storied building consisting 10 floors. He builds it at
his own cost and thereafter he sells the apartments or flats
to 10 persons and in that event he ceases to be the owner of
the building. The 10 purchasers become the owners of flats
and in such a situation it will lead to an absurdity because
one single person who once owned the entire building or
15
Page 16
several apartments, though has ceased to be the owner in
law yet is asked to pay the luxury tax solely on the ground
that at the time of construction there was no contribution
by the purchasers or to put it differently there had been no
prior booking. This is not the intention. The Explanation II
to Section 2(e) has to be read harmoniously with proviso to
Section 2(k) and Section 5A of the Act. The intention of the
legislature as gatherable is that ownership of different flats
and the cost of construction of building are met by all such
persons. The meeting of the cost jointly is not to be
narrowly construed to mean that there has to be an
investment before the commencement of the construction of
the building. The persons who purchase afterwards they
really share the value of the construction cost apart from
the profit margin due to the builder or the seller. Unless
such an interpretation is placed, the original owner of flats
when he ceases to be the owner of the building or the
purchaser of a small apartment less then 278.7 square
meters would still be liable to pay luxury tax. Such an
interpretation would lead to absurdity.
15. In our considered opinion, the principle of purposive
16
Page 17
interpretation of the provision has to be adopted and when
such a construction is placed, it serves the legislative intent.
To elaborate, a person may have a three-storied building
and he owns it, then there has to be different computation
as per the main part of Section 2(k) and for that it has to be
calculated as is done by the revenue authority. Once he
ceases to be the owner, he will not be liable to pay the
luxury tax. But as long as he continues to be the owner, as
per Section 5A, he will be liable to pay the luxury tax for all
floors/apartments subject to the cap provided under Section
5A of the Act. In this context we may refer to the decision in
State of T.N. v. Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd.1
wherein this Court, after referring to K.P. Varghese b. ITO2
and Luke v. IRC3, observed thus:-
“The courts must always seek to find out the intention of the legislature. Though the courts must find out the intention of the statute from the language used, but language more often than not is an imperfect instrument of expression of human thought. As Lord Denning said it would be idle to expect every statutory provision to be drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. As Judge Learned Hand said, we must not make
1 (1989) 3 SCC 91 2 (1981) 4 SCC 172 : 1981 SCC (Tax) 293 3 (1964) 54 ITR 692 : 1963 AC 557 (HL)
17
Page 18
a fortress out of dictionary but remember that statutes must have some purpose or object, whose imaginative discovery is judicial craftsmanship. We need not always cling to literalness and should seek to endeavour to avoid an unjust or absurd result. We should not make a mockery of legislation. To make sense out of an unhappily worded provision, where the purpose is apparent to the judicial eye ‘some’ violence to language is permissible.”
16. In Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT4 it has been held by
this court that when in a taxation statute where literal
interpretation leads to a result that does not sub-serve the
object of the legislation another construction in consonance
with the object can be adopted.
17. In the case at hand, as is noticeable, the learned Single
Judge had remanded the matter to the revenue authority
and the Division Bench has declined to interfere. The
Division Bench has applied the functional unit test. We do
not accept the same. The learned Single Judge, as we have
reproduced a paragraph hereinbefore, has opined that when
the plinth area of any residential apartment is above 278.7
sq. mts., then the authority can demand luxury tax for such
apartment or flat. Be it noted, the learned Single Judge has
4 (1990) 2 SCC 231
18
Page 19
held that even if the person is the owner of the entire
building the computation would be apartment-wise. The
said analysis is also incorrect. We have given purposive
interpretation to Explanation II as it has to be read with
Section 5A of the Act. When the owner parts with the
building each apartment will be segregable for the purpose
of luxury tax. If he remains the owner for the whole or part
then he will be liable to pay for the plinth area in respect of
the flats or apartments that is retained by him subject to
the cap as envisaged under Section 5A of the Act. If he sells
away the entire building then it has to be
flat/apartment-wise calculation/computation, for every
apartment owner is different than the others. Thus, the
plinth area would be different. To clarify further, if a
singular person purchases three flats, he will be liable on
the basis of aggregate plinth area subject to the cap
envisaged under Section 5A of the Act.
18. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set
aside the order of the revenue authority and that of the High
Court in writ petition and the writ appeal, and remand the
matter to the revenue authority to compute the luxury tax
19
Page 20
in the manner which we have clarified hereinabove. There
shall be no order as to costs.
.............................J. [Dipak Misra]
..........................., J. [Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi July 1, 2015
20