Holding

The Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 is a valid exercise of the State's power to tax buildings under Entry 49 of List II and is neither retrospective nor arbitrary.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, which imposed a non‑recurring tax on buildings based on a "capital value" calculated as sixteen times the building's annual value. The petitioners challenged the Act on four grounds: (1) it was beyond the State's legislative competence because it taxed the capital value of assets (Entry 86, List I) rather than lands and buildings (Entry 49, List II); (2) it was retrospectively applied to buildings constructed from April 1, 1973; (3) it effectively taxed both buildings and the land on which they stood; and (4) the method of valuation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court held that the tax fell squarely within Entry 49, List II, was not retrospectively impairing any vested right, and the valuation method was a permissible legislative choice. It also found that the procedural machinery for assessing annual value existed in the Municipal Corporation, Municipalities and Panchayat Acts, rendering the Act's provisions valid. Consequently, all the petitions were dismissed and the appeals were rejected.

Issues considered

The State Legislature's competence to levy a tax on buildings under Entry 49 of List II versus Entry 86 of List I
Whether the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 is retrospective and thus unconstitutional
Whether the tax is in fact on both buildings and the land on which they stand
Whether the method of determining capital value (annual value multiplied by sixteen) is arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Article 14

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 246, s. Article 366(28), s. Entry 49 List II, s. Entry 86 List I
Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975s. 11, s. 18, s. 2, s. 5, s. 6
Kerala Municipal Corporation Act, 1961s. 102(2)
Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960s. 150
Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960s. 144, s. 68

Subjects

building taxstate legislative competenceconstitutional validityretrospective taxvaluation methodArticle 14Article 366Entry 49 List IIEntry 86 List Icapital value

Judgment

804

D. C. GOUSE AND CO. ETC.
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. ETC.
September 21, 1979
B (Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., V. R. KRISHNA !YER, N. L. UNTWALIA,
P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.J
Kera/a Building Tax Act, 1975-Constitutional validity of-Act itnposed a
non-recurring tax based on capital value-State Legislature if competent to
impose.
The Kcrala Building Tax ,,'\ct, 1975 passed by the State Legislature under
C Entry 49 of List II (Taxes on lands and buildings) is imposed as a non-recur-
rine tax on buildings, constructed on or after April 1, 1973, the "capital value'"
of which exceeds Rs. 2,0,000/-. The term "capital value" is defin~d to mean the
value arrived at by multiplying th.e "annual value" of a building by sixteen.
"Annual value" means the gross annual rent on which the buildin& may, at the
tim~ of completion, be expected to let from month to month or from year ro
year. Section 6 prdVides that the anoual value of a building shall be the annual
D value fixed for that building in the assessment books of the local authority
(which includes a Municipal Corporation or a municipality and so on) within
whose area the building is situate. Section 6(4) provides that in determining the
annual value of a building regard, must be had to the location of the building,
the nature and quality of the structure of the building, the capability of the
building and so on. An assessee objecting to the assessment of building ta"t
assessed or denying the Jiability may appeal to the Appellate Authority under
E s. 11. But no appeal lies unless the building tax due has been paid. Although
no appeal lies from the decision of the Appellate Authority, provision is made
for reference to the District Court on a question of law and the District Collec-
tor is given power to vevise the order of the Appellate Authority and the Gov-
ernment has the power of revision against the order of the District Collector.
Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by s. 27 of the Act.
The High Court, having upheld the validity of the Ac4 the appellants in
F their appeals impµgned the view of the High Court.
It WM contended on behalf of the appellants that (I) the tax levied on
\
buildings being a tax on the capital value of the assets falls within the scope /

of entry 86 of List I of the Seventh Schedule and, therefore, is beyond the
legislative competence of the State Le~islature; (2) th~ Act was unconstitu·
tional in that it imposed a tax on buildings retrospectively (over a period of 2
G yea.rs of its enactment); (3) it was not merely a_ tax on buildings but a t<\X on
the buildings, and lands of those buildings; ( 4) the method of determining the
capital value of a building on the basis "of its annual value is hypothetical and
arbitrary and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
HEID : 1 There is no force in the argument that the State Legislature was
not competent to impose a tax on the buildings under entry 49 of List II.
[818 BJ
H
(a) Article 366(28) defines tax to, include imposition of any tax whether
general, local or special. The word "tax" in its widest sense includes all money
D. C, GOUSE V. KERALA 805

raised by taxation and includes tax levied both by the Central and State Legis· A
Iatures as well as rates and charges levied by local autho~ities. [815 D-E]
(b) The term "asset&" referred to in entry 86 of List I means "Property iJl
general, all that one owns." If a tax is levied on "all that one owns" or his total
assets, it would fall within the pllrview of entry 86 and therefore would be
outside the.legislative competence of the State Legislature. On the other hand, if
~ tax is directly imposed on "buildings" it will bea r direct relation to the
'uildings owned by the assessee. Though the building owned by an· assessee is a B.
component of his total assets, the tax under entry '86 will not bear any direct
or definable relation to his building. A tax on "huildings" is, therefore, a direct
tax on buildings as such. It is not a personal tax without reference to any parti-
cular. property. [815 H, 816 A-BJ \
(c) A tax h as two elements : the person, thing or activity on which it is
imposed anJ the amount of the tax. The amount of tax· may be measured in
many ways. There is a distinction between the subject matter of a tax and the
c
standard by which the amount of tax is measured. Thus a building may be the
subject matter of a tax like wealth tax (entry 86 List I) or it may also be the
subject of a direct tax under entry 49 of List IL . The two taxes being separate
and distinct, they do not O\'er-lap each other. Therefore the .tax imposed in the
instant case is well within the competence of tb_e legislature. [816 E-F] \·

Sudhir Chandra Nawn v. 'wealth Tax Officer, Calcutta ·& Ors., [1969) 1 SCR
108; Assisralll Commission£r of Urban Land Tax and Ors. v. The Buckingham
and Carnatic Co, Ltd., Etc., [1970] 1 SCR 268 referred to.
(d) It is settled law that the quantum of tax levied by the taxing statute
and the CGllditions subject to which "it is levied are matters within the compe-
tence of the legislature and so long as ilie tax is not confiscatory or extortionate ·
the :reasonableness of thei tax cannot be questioned in a court of law. [828 D-EJ 'E
R ai R_amkrisfma & Ors. v. Th~ State of Bihar, [1964] 1 SCR. 897; K111111atl1at
Thathunni Moopil Nair v. Tlic State ofi K erala & Anr., [1961] 3 SCR 77 referred
to.
2 (a). The Act is not retr06pective in the strictly technical sense of the term.
A statute is deemed to be retrospective, when it takes away or . impairs any
vested right acquired under existing laws or creates a 1'eW obligation in respect F
of the transactions or considerations already past. The Act, though passed in
April 1975, had imposed a tax on buildings with retrospective effect from April
1973-. By so doing it has not taken away or impaired any vested right of the
owner of the building acquired under any existing law. Absence of an earlier
taxing statute cannot be said to create a "vested right" under any existing law.
Nor has any new obligation or disability been attached in re.'>pect of any earlier
transaction. If the language of the enactment s hows that ·the legislature thought G
it expedient to authorise the making of retrospective rates, it can · fix the period
as to which the rate may be retrospectively made. [818 D-H]
Bradford Union v. Wilts, (1868) LR 3 Q.B. 616; The Tata Iron & Steel Co.
Ltd. v. The State of Bihar, [1958] SCR 1355 referred to_. ·
(b) The choice of the legislature to. impose a tax on buildings with effect
from April 1, 1973 cannot be said to be discriminatory. The choice of a date as H
a basis for Classification cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particul ar
rea,,on . ~ forthcoming unless it is shown that it was capricious or whimsk:al.
15---625SCI/79
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.ll.

A Similarly unless i,t is shown that the fixing of the date is very wide of the reason-
able mark the decision of the legislature must be accepted. [819 C-Dl
In the instant case, after the 1961 Act was struck down by this Court in
1968 the Government declared its intention to introduce a fresh Bill so. as to
bring a new. Act into force from April 1970. After its introd.uction in th~
Assembly it was referred to a Select Committee which recommended that t~
. ,'B Act s.hould be brought into force from April 1, 1973. Two Ordinances giving
effect to the provisions of the draft Bill were promulgated and eventually the
Bill became an Act in April, 1975. These facts would not show that the choice
of the date of April 1, 1973 was unreasonable or that it was wide of the
reasonable mark. [819 E-G]
3(a). What entry 49 of List II permits is the levy of "taxes oa lands and
buildings." It is permissible under this entry to levy a tax either oe lands ·as
.well as buildings, or on lands, or on buildings, if the legislature decides to impose
a tax only on buildings, the tax would be imposed on all that goes to make or
constitute a building. [82Q B-C]
(b) The word "building" means "that which is built; a structure, edi6c;c;"
The natural and ordinary meaning of a "building" is, a "a fabric of which it is
composed, the ground upon which its wall5 stand and the ·ground embracerl
I> within those walls." Enrty 49 includes the side of the building as its compo-
nent part. [820 C-D]
·(c) The definition of the term "building" in the Act makes it clear that
a house, outhouse, garage or any other structure cannot be erected without the
ground on which it is to stand. The expression "building" includes the fabric
of which it is composed, the· ground upon which its walls stand and the ground
within thoee walls because the ground would not have a separate existence,
apart from the building. The ground referred to in Entry 49 List Il would
not be the subject matter of a separate tax, apart from .the tax on the building
standing on it. That being so there is no occasion to tax the site separately
or to ascertain its value and add it to the value of the fabric. [82.0 F-0]
(d) This i:? also the ,Position in the case of appurtenances. An appurten-
ance belongs to the building concerned and has no existence of its own. An
appurtenance, it its true sense, is: an integrated part of the building to which
it belongs. [826 F-G]
( e) In the matter of fixing the annual value of the building under s. 6
f'f'JJ:ard must be had to the "location of the building" and the "value of the land
on which the building comtrncted", but it does not benr on the annual valae
of the ground of the building which does not have .an existence of it~ own.
apart from the building. It is therefore futile to contend that as factors (a)
and (f) of sub«ction 4 of s. 6 refer to the location of the building and the
value of the land, the law recognises the separate existence or entity Qf the
ground on which the buildings stands, so that the tax imposed under it is a
tax both on lands and buildings and both entities should be separately recog-
nised :hid determined, and taxed as such [821 C-E]

H 4(a) When the State Legislature had decided to impose a tax, it was open
to it to decide how best to levy it. One: of t1* usu·a1 modes of levying tax
·iq to make provision for determining the "rate", or annual value of the bhild-
,fog. Rateable value is the same as the net annual value .o f the building. But
D. C. GOUSE V. KERALA 807

· if. the Vegislature- d(X:ides to levy a tax on bllildings once for all or, as a "non- A '
..A. 1·ecurring" tax on buildings, it has to go beyond the annual value, and work
out the capital value which could be; done on the basis of capital cost of cons-
Uuction of the building or its market value or on the basis of rent arrived at
l?Y what is known as "higgling of the market'' multiplying it by a number
which would best serve the purpose of determining the value of the building
and then to specify the rate of tax on it. [822 C-F]
B

i (~) If the Legislature chOse to adopt the· annual value as the basis for
working out the capital vaJue it cannot be blamed for it because besides oth'er
advantages ~it is readily ava1lable from the records of local authorities and is a
quite simple and reliable basis· to \\'Ork upon. [828 B·C]

~.. (c) The various methods of properly valuation are the various facets to a
di;ficult problem and no one method is perfect or final or above criticism. C'
The multiple of sixteen adopted cannot be said to suffer from any constitu-
tional or legal infirmity. [830 G-HJ

( (d) The capital value of a building is not merely th'e cost of itsi bricks
and mortar. It may be difficult to provide a ready or convenient basis of
taxation. There can be Ilo objection if the Legislature decides to levy th'e
annual Value of a building and prescribes a uniform formula for JeterminiBg
its capital value. The four well·accepted methods for arriving at the annual D
vaJue of the building, are : (1) The "competitive or comparative method";
(2) the "profits basis"; (3) the "contractor's method"; and ( 4) the "unit method".
These tour methods can be applied either singly or in con1bination. [823 B·E]
• (e) The fundamental object of each of these method~ is to find out the
rent which the tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for a building. It
is the expectation which is to be reasonable and not necessarily the rent, i0r E
the reasona-ble expectation would exclude any so-calleel. black market rent.
Bwt t.Qere is no rule of law as to the method of valuation to be adopted for
determining the annual value of a building. If the Legislature selects the
m~thod .of determining the annual value on the basis of rent, that is the, best
evidence, of value If it ~s been fixed by the higgling of the market there
1
•

is neither reason nor authority for holding that it is hypothetical or arbitrary.
[R>.,} G-iH, 824 A-BJ F

(f) The provisions of the Act, taken together, contain the entire scheme

I for the levy and collection of the building t>x on the capital value of building.
The expression "capital value" is not the cost of ,construction of the building
or its market value as wealth but is only a working expr'ession which, roughly
stated, is the taxable' value of the building. The State Legi51.ature •.vas quite
competent to select that as the basis for assessing the building tax. [824 D-E] G
(g) There is no inherent illegality if the gross income of the property were-
to be capitalised for th'e purpose of determining the value of the property,
firstly, because there is nothing to prevent the Legislature from making the
expected gross annual rent and thereby the annual value of a building from
) being the unit for multiplication by sixteen for arriving ~t its capital value for
charging tax under s. 5. Secondly, by virtue of s. 6 the annual value form•
the basis for determining ·the capital value -of the building for the purposes of H
the Act. However what is really taken as the annual volue under tho definition
in s. 2(a) is not the gross annual rent but the net rent after allowing for the
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 s.c.R.

A cost of its repairs etc. It is hot therefore factually correct to say that the
annual value of the buildings in •the State is determined on the b8Sis of theit
groos an.nual rent. without ariy deduction on account of repairs. Nor is it correct
to say that the determination of the capital value was arbitrary as it was arrived
at by multiplying the gross annual rent by sixteen. The gross value of a bnild-
ing is of~ .made the datum point by statute and there is nothing unusllal or

,• illegal ai>oQt it particularly when there are statutable deductions from it.
[825 C-Hl

(h) Section 6(1) accepts the annual value of a building in the books of
the local· authorities as correct. But. that would not justify the argument that
doing . so is illegal or ulireasona.ble as long "'' it "can be showo that what is ·
entered in tho assessment books of the local authorities has been ainved' at ·

.C
in accorda.oce with a satisfactory procedliie · laid down for it in the statutes ·
conc:emed. If the procedure prescribe4 .in,, th~t .Act. is unexceptionable, th~re,
,
is nothing ·illegal or unconstitutional if a.oothel; taxing statute provides that '
the annual value fixed by it shall l>e ac~ted ·as correct and .wculd form. the.
basis fur the ca.Jculation of any other tax permissible under another statute.
In such cases there is nO necessity for proVidin'g 'ailothef machinery ·in the lJth~r
Act and Rules. Moreover ss. 9 to 16 of the Act c.ontain the procedure end
tho machinery for the assessment of the building tax on the returns filed u,;cier
D ss. 7 and 8. These provisions are adeqnate" in .all re$peCts and are not, open ,
to challenge. [831 F-H, 832 A-BJ

5. (a) The argument that th~ capital 'value,of a building, is bQUnd to {lilfqr
1
according to- its location, amenities and. aPPnrtCnances etc. and. that ascertain-
ment of the capital value by multipfying the annual value by sixteen is discri-
minatory and 'iolative of Art. 14, loses sight of the fact that the i.egislature
has defined the annual value to mean the . annual rent at which -a.. buildilig
may be expected to let. [833 H, 834 A-Bl

(b) A building in an important locality with attractive appurtenance is
expected to fetch a higher rent than a building without th0<e advantages. The
definition of capital value provides for the levy of a higher building tax on
buildings on which snch levy would be jus'tilied, because the incidenc'e .of the
F levy would depend on the capacity of the buildin~ to fetch the rent. [834 B-C]

6. There is no force. in the argument that ·when s. 29 says that in fix~
the fair rent of a bnilding under s. 5 of the Rent Control Act, the rent control
court would · not take · into consideration the bnilding lax· payable under· the

'
Act and that this makes the provision extortiollate because it prevents the 'owoer
from passing .on the liability to the tenant. The tax being a non-recurring
G tax, the question of passing it on to the tenant ·bY splitting it up.in proportion· I
to the number of years of the tenancy 'cannot· arise. Th~re is ·no provwob
In the Rent Control Act under which. a building tax could be taken into consi·
deration in fixing .the fair rent. [834 D-F]

7. Section 18 which provides that tax niay be paid in certain prescribed
number of instalments and the proviso to .s. II (I) which deal& with appeals
H llhonld be read harmoniously. If an assessee is entitled to pay the. building
~ ill inltalments, h:e would not be disenti~Cd to. file an ~ppeal if .he has paid
dlO~e instalments as and when they fell due. [834 G-H]
D. C. GOUSE,V. KERALA 809 .

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1524 of 1978 A '
(From the Judgment and ilider dated 29-6-1978 of the' Kerala
High Court in Original Petition No. 4411177)

CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 2091-2092 OF 1978
(F;om the Judgment and Otder dated 26-6-1978 and .20-6-1978 B
of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 3909/74 and 3902i75)

c1vrL APPEAL NOS. 2093-2103 or 1978.
(From tlie.Judgments and ·orders dated 27-6-78, 20-6-78, 30-6-78,
12-6-78; 26-6-7.8, 22-6-78, 21-6-78, 30-6,78, 20,6-78, 27~6-78 of the C
Ker11fa High Court in O.P. Nos. 4833/75, 1006/75, 635/78 and
4940/77, 4096/74, 1820/75, 2258/76, 203/76, 346/78; 3497 /75,
~nd· 5q20/75 .respectively)
';

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2136 OF 1978
D
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12-6-78 of the Kerala High
Court in O.P. No. 393,3'/75) :
' ' .
-..
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6 OF 1979
(From tb,e.Judgment and ilider dated.23-6-78 of.the Kerala High
Court in O.P~ No. 4449 /76-K) . . .

CIViL APPEAL N_OS. 27•31 OF 1978

. (From the Judgments and Orders dated• 28-6-78, 2-3:8-781 28-6-78· F
t & 16-6c78, of the Kerhlfii High G:oiirt ill O•P. Nos .. 3401/77, 4660/75,
1658/77; 3929/75 ·and :f925/75·respeelively) · ·
·• • _ ., · r , , r ' , . • ,

CIVIL APPEAL NOS'. 50-52 OF 1978

(From the Judgments and Orders dated 28-6-78, 21-6-78 & 30~6-78
of the Kerala Hil\h Court in' i1.J!l N-0s. 3130/77-E, 5470/75 an!l G
799 /78 respectively)
. ' '111 . I
CIVIL APPEAL Nos: 188, 266 AND 303 OF 1979 .
- . ", ~ ,.. ' . , '"""' ;"\"'\

. (Fro!!; the Jud~ents and Order~ dated 29-6-78, 1-6-7~,fl!fd, ~t the' H
Kerala High Court m 0.P. Nos. 4758/75, 150/76 and 5800f78 'res-
tiectively) ·
810 WPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 1 S.C.R •
A CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 309-311 OF 1979
. ).
(From the Judgments and Orders dated 23-6-78, 20-6-78 and
24-11-1978 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 3601/76, 4991/75
and 4611/75 respectively)

B CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 472-473 OF 1979
(From the Jndgment and Order dated 29-6-78 of the Kerala High ~
Conrt in O.P. Nos. 4283/75 and 4290/77)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1543-1546 OF 1978
c (From the Jndgment a11d Order dat~d 12-6-1978 of the Kerala
High Court in 0.P. Nos. 3909, 3970, 4252 and 4256/,74)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1689-1693 OF 1978
From the Judgments and Orders dated 20-6-1978, 22-6-1978,
23-6-78, 22-6-78, 291-6-78, 21-6-78 & 22-6-78 of the Kerala High
D Court in 0.P. Nos. 850/75, 1000/75, 4964/75 and 25/76, 1747/76
and 2076/76 and 544/76 and 4804/75K and 5928/75N, 1889/76G,.
and 1615/76H respectively)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 1978
E (From the Jndgment and Order dated 12-6-1978 of the Kerala
High Court in O.P. No. 1147/75)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1981-2004 OF 1978
(From the Judgments and Orders dated 28-6-78, 23-6-78, 27-6-78"
22-6-78, 30-6-78, 21-6-78, 20-'6-78, 28"6-78, 23-6-78, 28-6-78,
F 26-6-78, 12-6-78, 23-6-78, 28-6-78, 20-6-78, 2-6-78, 27-6-78,
26-6-78, 23-6-78, 28-6-78 and 27-6-78 of the Kerala High Court in:
O.P. Nos. 3507/77, 3622/77 and 1375/76 and 796/177 and 3005/76
and 567/78 and 5669/75, 1124/76 and 5173 and 3509/7i and t
4445/76 and 3508/77 and 5852/76 and 4230/74 and 3978/76 and
3616/77 and 5328/75 and 2415/76 and 1310/,77E and 5810/76G,
G 4940/760 and 3634/76N and 1380/77L and 2742/76 respectively).
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2105 OF 1978
(Front the Judgment and Order dated 20-6-78 of the Kerala High I
Court in 0.P. No. 5175/75) ..J.
H CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2324, 2351, 2352, 2353 AND 2354 OF 1978
(From the Judgments and Orders dated 30-6-1978, 23-6-78, ·
D. C. GOUSE V. KERAL/\ 811

26-6-78 and 20-6-78 of the Keral'a High Court in, O.P. Nos. 438/78B, A'
1535/76N and 1443/76E and 5134/7S respectively)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2415-2419 OF 1978

(From the Judgments and Orders dated 21-6-1978, 12-6-78, 8- ,
30-6-78, 21-6-78 and 27-6-78 of the Keral.i High Court in O.P. Nos.
5581/75, 5240/75, 849/78, 2751/76 nnd 1552/77 respectively)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2497 OF 1978

(From th<; Judgment and Order dated 20-6-78 ot the Kerala High c '
Court in O.P. No. 4028/75)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2587 /!78 AND 67-71/79

(From the Judgments and Orders dated 30-6-1978, 29-6-78 and
21-6-1978 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 3351/76N, and B •
6127/75, 6159/75, '(!972/75, 4628/7.7-A & 5755/75 respectively)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 129-131 AND 197/79

(From the Judgments and Orders 'dated 21-6-78, 20-6-78 of the
Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 5677 /75, 5723/75 and 5263/75 and E ·
5877 /75 respectively)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 265, 420 AND 544, 545 & 580 OF 1979

(From the Judgments1 and Orders dated 20-6-79, 21-6-79, 22-6-78,
20-6-78 and 22-6-78 of the Kerala High Court in, O.P. Nos. 5004/75; p •
5524/75, 248/76K, 5335/75 and 2962/76G respectively)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 1965-1967 AND 2203-2206 OF 1978
I (From the Judgments and Orders dated 25-7-78, 28-6-78, 4-7-78,
3-7-78, 22-6-78, 27-6-78 and 29-6-78 of the Kerala High Court in G ·.
0.P. Nos. 254/78, 3132/77-F, 4640/75, 1459/78-F, 750/76-E,
704/77-A and 5995/175 respectively)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 2583/78, 1/79, 72/79 AND 168/79

l (From the Judgments and Orders dated 23-6-78, 27-6-78, 23-6-78 B
and 29-6-78 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 260/76-L 1863/
77E, 1398/76N and 4494/77B respectively)
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 2104/78, 2401/78 AND 2350/78
(From the Judgments and Orde.rs dated 12-6-78, 26-6-78, 30-6-78
of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 4509/74, 5770/76L and
1150/76)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 1860-1865 OF 1978
(From the JudgffientS and Orders dated 12-4-78, 28-6-78, 29-6-78,
23-6-78, 26-6-78 of.the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 4184/74,
3665/74C, 3932/77(B), 4165/76K and 5815/76(H) respectively)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 2256-2257/78, 33.3/79, 500/179
C (From the Judgments and Orders dated 21-6-78, 29-6-78 and
27-6-78 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 5494/75, 4716/77,
4285/75 and 3023/76) ·
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2207 OF 1978
."
I> (From the Judgment and Order dated 23-6-78 of the Kerala High
Court in O.P. No. 4140!;76-H)

· CIVIL· APPEAL NO. 169 OF 1979
(From the Jridglneti~'aid·Order dated 28-6-77 of thq Kerala High:
. Court in O.P. No. 3117/77}
E
CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 148-150/79, 304-305/79 AND 409/79
· (From the Judgments and Order~ dated 27-6-78, 28-6-78, 20-6-78,
·\ 27-6-78, of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 1941/77, 1903/77,
5176/78, 1047/,77(G) and 1306i77E) .
F
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2254, 2255/78 .AND 267 OF 1979 ,
(From the Judgments and Orders dated 27-6-78, 21-6-78 and
2.7-6-78 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. -No. 93/77, 5396/75 atjd .
2277 /76-D respectively) ·,
6 (.From the Judgments and Orders dated 21-6-78 and''30-6-78 of the·
Kerafa High Court in O.P. Nos. 5416/(75 and 4782/77C)
WRIT PETITION NOS. 4375 OF 1978 & 143/79
li (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
H . CIVIL AfP;EAL,l•fO.· :W .OF 1979
(From the Jurlgment and Orde.r dated 12-6-1978 of the Kerala
· High Court in O.P. No. 4042/74)
D. C. GOUSE V. KERALA 813

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 6298 OF 1978 A
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5-7-78 of the Kemla Higb
•Court in O.P. No. 983/76)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS: 1137-1138/79
(From the Judgments and Orders dated 7-8-78 and 27-6-78 of the B
:Kerala High Court in O.P, Nos. 3474/77'and 1950/77)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS: 4861-4862 &
6154-56/79
(From the Judgments and Orders dated 26-6-78, 27-6-78
.26-6-78, 28-6-78 and 30-6-78 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. C
638/77, 1530/77, 5485/78, 2950/77 and 884/78)
. P. Govindan Nair (C.As. 1524, 2092-2095/78, 27, 29, 303, 310
and 311/,79 T. C. Raghavan (CA 266), T. L. Anantha Sivan and
N. Sudhakaran, for the Appellants iu CAs. 1524, 2091-2092, 2093-
:2103, 2136/:78, 6, 27"31, 50-52, 100, 266, 303, 310. 311, 309, 472
and 47'3/79; . D
Anil B. Divan (1543-46 and 1556), S. B. Saharya, K. V. Kuriakose
(in all except 1995, 1997, 1998, 29-31, 197, 500 and V. B. Saharya
cfqr' the Appellants, in C.As. 1543-46, 1656, 1689-99, 1981-2004,
2105, 2324, 2351-2352, 2354, 2415-2419, 2497, 2587 /178, 67"71,
12~-131, 197, 265, 420, 544-545 and 500/79. , E
P. A. Francis, (1966) -K. Sudhakaran (1967), P. Parameswaran
(1966-67) A. S. Nambiar.foir the Appellants in 1965, 1966, 1967,
2203, 2204, 2205, 2206, 2353 and 2503/78, 1, 72 and 168/>79, .
·168/79, 2063/78 and for the Petitioner in W.P. 143/79.
P. Kesava Pillai and S. K. Das Gupta for the Appellants in CAs. F
2104, 2350 and 2401/78 .
. P. Govindan Nair and Mrs. Saroja Gopalkrishnan for the Appellants
:in 1860-64/78. ·
·~~ J '

s: K. Mehta, P. N. Puri and EMS Anam for the Appellants in C.A.
2256, 2257/78, 333, and.500/79 and 2026/79. G
S. Balakrishnan for the Appellants in CA 2207 /78 and for Peti-
·tioner in W.P. 4375/79.
G. B. Pai069), K.J. John and Manzqlkwnar for the Appellants
; m C.A. 39 and t'i59/79. · · · · ·· ' · .
. i • ,,., ' ,-:: .
·
'
· i'
P. Govindan Nair, Mrs. Baby Krishnan and N. Sudhakaran for the H
Appellants. C.A. 148-50, 304-305 abd 409/79 and for the Petitioners
in SLP Nos. 4062, 4061, 6298, 5141, 6154-6156/78.
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A A. T. M. Sampath and P. N. Ramalingam for the Appellants in·
CA 2254 and 2255/78 and 267 /79. )
K. P. P. Pillai for the Appellants in C.A. 542 and 571/79.
N. Sudhakaran for the Petitioners in SLP 1137-1138/79.
M. M. Abdul Khader and K. M. K. Nair for the Respondents in
B all matters.
The Judgment of the CQurt was delivered by
SHJNGHAL, J. These cases relate to the validity of certain·
provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, hereinafter referred
to as the Act, and are directed against the judgment of the Keral~
c High Court dated June 12, 1978,, by which the validity of those provi··
sions has been upheld. We have heard these cases together and shall'
deal wits them in this judgment.
In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be convenient to·
make a brief mention of th~ background of the Act.
D
The Legislature of the Kerala State wanted to impose a tax onj
buildings, and passed the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1961, which came ·
into force on March 2, 1961. Its validity was challenged, and by his
judgment dated November 20, 1964, a learned Single Judge of the·
lligh Court held it to be invalid and unconstitutional. The divisi~
E bench took the same view in its judgment dated July 7, 1966, and'
dismissed the appeal of the State. The matter came to this Court,
and it also dismissed. the appeal by its judgment dated August 13,.
1968, reported in State of Kerala v. Haji K. Haji K. Kutty Nalia and·
others. (1) This was so because the Legislature had adopted merely
the floor area of the building a~ the basis of the tax irrespective of all'
F other considerations. The intention to introduce a fresh Bill and to·
levy a non-recurring tax on building was stated in the Finance Minis--
ter's budget speech of 1970-71. A Bill was published some time inc.
June, 1970, and it was stated there that the Act would be brought
)
into forc01 with effect from April 1, 1970. The Bill was introduced in
the Legislative Assembly on July 5, 1973, and was referred to a
G
Select Committee. The Committee submitted its report <1ll Marcn 28,
1974. It recommended that the Act may be brought into force from.
April 1, 1973. As the Bill could not be taken up during the budget
session, the Governme11t of the State promulgated the Kerala Building
Tax Ordinance, 1974, on, July 27, 1974 to give effect to the provisions
B of the Bill as reported by the Select Committee. It was followed
by another ordinance dated November 18, 1974 on the lines of thdc
(!) [1969] I S.C.R. 645.
D. c. GOUSE v. KERALA (Shinghal, J.) 815

earlier ordinance. The Bill was passed soon after, and the Governor
gawc his assent to it on April 2, 1975. Several writ petitions were
filed in the High Court to challenge its constitutional validity, and
we have made a mention of the High Court's impugned judgment dated
June 12, 1978, from which the present cases have arisen. While
four Hon'ble Judges of the High Court haveJ upheld the validity of the
Act, a different view has been taken by Eradi, J. B

The question which arises for consideration at the threshold is that
relating to the competence of the State Legislature to enact the Jaw,
on which considerable stress, has been laid by Mr. P. A. Francis. He
has argued that the subject-matter Q!j the Act being a tax on buildings,
it i~ a tax on the capital value of the assets of an indhidual or company
and falls within the scope of entry 86 of List I ofi the Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution, and not under entry 49 of List II, so that it was
beyond the legislative competence of State Legislature. The question
is whether this is m
D
TI1e word "tax" in its widest sense includes all money raised by
taxation. It therefore includes taxes levied by the Central and the
State Legislatures, and also these known as "rates'', or other charges1
levied by local authorities under statutory powers. "Taxation" \Jas
therefore been defined in clause (28) of articl() 366 of the Constitution
to include "the imposition of any tax qr impost, whether general or
•
E
local or special," and it has been directed that "tax" shall be "construed
accordingly."

Chapter I of Part XI of the; Constitutiol\ deals with the distribution
of legislative powers. Article 246 of that chapter states, inter alia,
the exclusive powers of the Parliament and the State Legislatures F
according as the matter is enumerated in List I or List II of the Seventh
Schedule. Entry 86 of List I, qn which reliance has been placed by
Mr. Francis, reads as follows : - '
"86. Taxes on the capital value of assets, exclusive of
agricultural land, of individuals and companies; raxes on the
capital of companies." G

Now the word "assets" has been defined in the Century Dictionary
(which is an encyclopedic lexicon of the il,"1.glish lai~guage) a~
follows.- ·
"Property in general; all that one owns, considered as H
appiicable to the payment of his debts .... A~ a singular.
Any portion of one's property or effects so considered."
816 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS

So if a tax is levied on all that orie oWIIS, or his total assets, · it
would fall within the purview of entry 86 of List I, and would \J!l
outside the legislative competence of a State Legislature, e.g. a tax
on one's entire wealth. That entry would not authorise a tax imposed
on any of the componeuts of the assets of the assessee. A tax; directly
on one's laRds nud buildings will not therefore be a tax under entry
86.
On the other hand, entry 49 of List H is as fol!ows,-
"49. Taxes on lands and buildings."
If therefore a tax is. directly imposed ou "buildings", it will bear :a
c direct relation to the buildings owned by •thei assessee. rn may be that
the building o'.'med by an assessee may be a componen~ Olf hfs totirl
assets, but a tax under entry 86 will not bear any direct or definable
relation to his building. A tax on "buildings" is .therefore a direct
tax on tlie · allGessee.'s. buildings as such, and is not a personal tax
without reference to any particular property.
D , It has to be appreciated that in almost all cases, a tax has two
elemnts which have been precisely stated by Seervai in his "Coustitu:
tional Law of India," second edition·, volume·2, as follows, at page
1258,-
"Another principle for reconciling apparently conflicting
E tax entries follows from the fact that a tax ha~ two elements :
the person, thing o.r activity on which the tax is impbsed,
and the amount of the tax. The amount may be measured
in many ways; but ·decided cases establish a clear distinction
,. between the subject matter of a tax and·the standard by which
the amount of tax is measured. These two elements are
F described as the subject of a tax and the "measure of a tax."
It may well be that one's building may imperceptibly .be the subject
matter of tax, say the wealth-tax, as a component of his assets, under
entry 86 (List I); and it may al~o be supjected to tax, say a direct
tax under entry 46 (List II), but as the two taxes are separate and
distii:i.ct imp0sts, they cannot be said to nv;:r-lap .othe< and would W
within the competence .d the Legislatnres concerned. .
. . . )'~_, ·, ....-- '"f...;' ';
Reference m this connection may be made to Sudhir ChandraNmM
v. Wef;llt{lcTax Officer, Calcutta and· athers.(1) The petitioner there
,challenged the demand for the reco'.'.ery of wealth. tax on the ground,
inter .alia,. that since. the expression "net wealth" included the builaiilgs
of the assessee and the power to levy tax on theni was refen:ed to the
(I) [1969] I S.C.R. 108.
D. c. GOUSE v. KERALA (Shinghal, 1.) 817

State Legislature under eutry 49, List II, Parliament was not competent A
io levy the tax under entry 86 of List I. This Court rejected the
challenge and laid down the law as follows,- '
"The tax which is imposed by entry 86 List I of the
Seventh Schedulei is not directly a tax on lands and buildings.
It is a tax imposed on the capital value of the assets of
individuals and companies, on the valuation date. The tax
is not imposed on the components CJ1f the assets of the
assessee : it is imposed on the total assets which the assessee
owns, and in determining the net wealth not only the, encmn-
brances specifically charged against any item of asi;et, but
the general liability of tire assessee to pay his debts and to
discharge his lawful obligations have to be taken into account.

Tax on lands and buildings. is directly imposed on lands and
buildings, and bears a definite relation to it. Tax on tlie
capital value of assets bears no definable relation to landS
alld buildings which may form a component of the total
assets of the assessee. · By legislation in exercise of power'
uuder entry 86 List I tax is contemplated to be levied on the
value of the assets. For the purpose of levyirig tax under
entry 49 List II the State Legislature may adopt for deter-
miriing the incidence of tax the annual or the capital ' value
of the lands and buildings. But the adoption of the! annual E
or capital value of lands and buildings for determining tax
liability will not, in O!UT judgment,. ~'lfe the fields of legisfa-
. tion und~ the two entries overlapp~~. . .
The decision in Sudlzir Chandra Nawn's case was followed by this
Court in Assistant Commissioner of Ur/Jan. Land Tax and others v. F-
The Buckhingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd., Etc.(1) whree the vifes of
tJie Madras Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, was challenged with referen~e
to entry 86 of List I of the Se.venth Sche~· '.l'tle; .legal. position
on that aspect of the controversy was reite ' as follows ' - . ·
"But in a normal case a tax on capital value of assets
bears no definable relation to lands and buildingij which may
or may not form a comopnent of the total assets of the
assessee. .But entry 49 of List II, contemplates a levy of
tax on lands and buildings or both as nnits. It is not con-
cerned with the division of interest or ownership in the nnits
of lands or buildings which are brought to tax.· Tax cm lands
and buildings, is directly imposed on lanc!S irid bnilclings,
(!)· (1970] I S. C. R. 268.
SIS SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 $.C.R.

and bears, a.c:lefinite relatio0i to it. Tax on, the capital value )
of assets bears no definable relation to lands and buildings
which may form a component of the total assets of the
assessee."

There is therefore no force in the argument that the State Legisla-
1B ture was not competent to impose; the tax on buildings under entry 49
or List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. J
We may as well put aside the other argument that the Act is
unconstitutional as it was passed on April 2, 1975 but has imposed
a tax on buildings with retrospective effect from April 1, 1973 .
..e
Craies on Statute Law, seventh edition, has stated th<l meaningof t
"retrospective" at page 387 as follows,- ~

"A statute is to be deemed to be retrospective, which
takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under exist-
ing laws, oc creates a new obligation,, or imposes a new duty,
or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or
considerations already past. But a statute "is not properly
called a retrospective statute because a part of the requisi-
tes for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to· its
passing"."
,£
It has however not been shown how it could be said that the Act
has taken away or impaired any vested right of the assessees before
us which they had acquired under any existing law, or what that
vested right was. It may be that there was no liability to buililing
tax until the promulgation of the Act (earlier the Ordinances) but
mere absence of an earlier taxing statue cannot be said to create a
"vested right," un.-;t~~ existing Jaw, that it shall not be levied in
future with effect from'?late anterior to the passing of the Act. Nor
can it be said that by imposing the building tax from an earlier date )
any new obligation or disability has been attached in respect of any "
.G earlier transaction OJ consideration. The Act is not therefore retros-
pective in the strictly technical sense.
What it does is to impose the buildiug tax from April 1, 1973.
But as was held in Bradford Union v. Wilts,(1) if the language of the
statute shows that the legislature thinks it expedient to authorise the
making of retrospective rates, it can fi." the period as to which the )
.e rate may be retrospectively made.
(1) [1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 406 at p. 616.
D. c. GOUSE v. KERALA (Shinghal, J.) 819

This Court had occasion to examine the validity of the retrospec- A
·tive levy of sales tax in The Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. v. ·The State
.of Bihar(1) and it was held that that was not beyond the legislative
competence of the State Legislature.
Nor can the choice of April 1, 1973 as the date of imposition, ot
of the building tax be assailed as discriminatory with reference to B
article 14 of the Constitution. It will be enough for us to refer in this
connection to the following passage from this Court's decision in Union
of India and another v. M/s. Parameshwarwz Match Works Etc.(')
which was a case under the Centrat Excise and Salt Act, 1944.-
"The choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot
always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no- particular reason
c
is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capri-
cious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen
that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathe-
matical o.r logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of
the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless we D
can say that it is very wide of the reasonable mark. See
Louisville Gas Co. v. Alabama Powe>" Co.-240 U.S. 30
at 32 (1927) per Justice Holmes."
It has not been shown in this case how it conld be said that the
date (April 1, 1973) for the levy of the tax was wide 0£ the reason-
E
·nble mark. On the other hand it would appear from the brief narra-
tion of the historical background of the Act that the State Legislature
1md imposed the building tax under the Kerala Building Tax ·Act,
1961, which came into force on March 2, 1961, and when that Act
w~s finally struck down as unconstitutional by this Court's decision
dated August 13, 1968, the intention to introduce a fresh Bill for the F
·1evy was made clear in the budget speech of 1970-71. It will be
recalled that the Bill was published in June 1973 and it was stated
there that the Act would be brought into force from' April 1, 1970.
The Bill was introduced in the Assembly on July 5, 1973. The Select
Committee howeve!'. recommended that it may be brought into force '
·from April 1, 1973. Two Ordinances were promulgated to gj.ve G
-effect to the provisions of the :Bill. The Bill was passed soon after
and received the Governor's assent on April 2, 1975. It cannot
·therefore be said with any justification that in choosing April 1, 1973
as the date for the levy of the tax,. the Legislature acted unreasonably,
-or that it was "wide of the reasonable mark."
H
. ·(!) [1958] S. C. R. 1355.
·(2) [1975] 2 S; C. R. 573.
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A The real controversy in this case is that relating to the nature of
the tax, for it has been vehemently argued before us that it is not
merely a tax on buid!ings, but it is a tax on the buildings; as well aS·
on the. lands of !hos~ buildings.
As has been mentioned, what entry 49 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution pennits is thel levy of "taxes on lands and
B buildings." It is therefore permissible to levy a tax either on lands.
as well 1as buildings, or on lands, or on buildings. If the LegislatuxC'
decides to impose a tax only on "buildings"; the tax will be imposedi
on all that' goes to make, or constitute, a building,
The word "building" has been defined in the Oxford English Dic-
c tionary as follows,-
"That which is built; a structure, edifice : now a struc.·
ture of the nature of a house built where it is to stand."
Entry 49 therefore includes the site of the building as its component
part. That, if we may say so, inheres in the concept or the ordinary
D meaning of the expression "building".
A somewhat similar point arose for consideration in Corporation
of the City of Victoria v. Bishop of Vancouver Island(!) with reference
to the meaning of the word "building" occun;ing in section 197(1)
of the Statutes of British Columbia, 1914. It was held that the word
E must receive its natural and ordinary meaning as "iricluding the fabric
of wlllch it is composed, the ground upon ·which its walls stand and
the ground embraced within those walls." :'That appears to us to be
the correct meaning of "building."
The Act contains its own definition of what is meant by "buildillg";
and clause ( e) of . section
. .
2 is to the following
: . .
·effect,-
. ..
" ( e) "building" meilns a house, out-~oµse, garage, or any
. other structure .or .part thereof, .whether of masonry,
bricks, wood, metal or othe.r material, but does not
ir)clude any portable shelter or any shed constructed
principally of mud, bamboos, leaves, grass or thatch
or a latrine which is not attached to the main struc-
ture."

There are two explanations to the clause, but they are not relevant
for the controve.rsy before us. The definition therefore makes it quite
clear that as a house, out-house, garage or any other structure cannot
H be erected without the ground on whicli it is to stand, the expression
''building" includes, the 'fabric of whiCh'it:is' citlmposed, tfie ground
(1) [1921] P, C. 240.
D. C. GQUSE v. KERALA (Shinghal, J.) 821

upon which its walls stand and the ground within those walls. 1\ is
' equally clear that the ground referred to above would not have a
separate existence, apart from the building, and would not be "lands"
jointly stated with "buildings" as the subject-matter of the tax in entry
49 of List II. In other words, the "ground" referred to above would
not be the subject-matter of a separate tax, apart· from the tax on
the building standing on it.
I
I
/ It is true that sub-section ( 4) of section 6 of the Act provides
that in determining the annual value of a building under sub-section
(2) or sub-section (3), the assessing authority shall, among other
factors, have regard to the "location of the building", and the "value
of the land on which the building is constructed", but that is necessary
for fixing the am!ual value of the "building", and does not bear oti
the amrnal value of the ground of the building which, as we have
shown, does not have an existence of its own-apart from the building.
Thus a building which is located in an important business area of a
city, will have a higher annual value than a building located in the
outskirts of the city. But any such enhanced value is the value of the D
building and not of its ground, for what is located in an important
business area is not the ground of the buildin11J as such, but the building
itself. It may be that the value of the ground on which the building
stands may be known, or may be capable of being ascertained. That
is why the other factor mentioned in sub-section ( 4) of section 6 is
the value of that land. But here again, as the land has no separate E
existence of its own, the value of the ground inevitably goes to constitute
the value of the building.
Rule 4 of the Kerala Building Tax Rules, 1974, provides that the
return under sub-section (1) or (3) of section. 7, or section 8 of the
!\ct shall be in Form II. Column 2 of that form makes a mention y
of the location of the building, but not the locatiqn of its ground or
land, or the value thereof. It refers only to the· annual value of the
building in column (13) and its capital value in column 7, so that
the location of the building, as distinct from the location of its !)round,
or the value of the ground as such, do not go in for the determination
of the annual or capital value of the building: G
It is therefore futile to contend that as factors (a) and (f) of
sub-section ( 4) of section 6 of the Act refer to the location of the
building and the value of the land, the law recognises the separate
existence or entity of the ground on which the building stands, so that
the tax imposed under it is a tax both on lands and buildings and both H
the entities should be separately recognised and determined, and taxed
as such. As has been stated, the location or value of the land has
16-625 SCT/79
822 SUPREME COURT P-EPORTS (1980] l S.C.R.

A · importance of its own, and contributes to the value of the building
standing Oil it, but that does not j'ustify the argument than what the Act
provides is a tax on lands and buildings, and not merely on buildings.
There is also the further fact that while the Act provides the method
of arriving at the capital value of the building, on the basis of ii>
annual value, it does not provide any method of assessing the annual
8 or capital value of the ground on which the building stands.
We shall next examine the other argument that the method of
determining the capital value of a building on the basis of its annual
value is hypothetical and arbitrary and should be struck down as
unconstitutional.
c We have given our reasons for holding that the tax on buildings,
under the provision of the Act, has been imposed by virtue of ontry 49
of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. So when the
State Legislature had taken a decision to impose that tax, it was open
to it to decide how best to levy it. If thel tax was to be annual, one
of the usual modes of levyillg it was to makei provision for ct'etermining
D what is known as "rate", or annual value of the building. Rateable
value is now, in almost all cases, the same as the net annual value
of the building.
But if the State Legislature decides, as in the present case, to levy
a tax on buildings once for all or, as was stated in the statement of
E Objects and Reasons of one of the Bills, as a "non-recurring" tax on
buildings, it had to go beyond the annual value, and work out the
capital value. This could be done in one of the various modes open
to it e.g. on the basis of the capital cost of construction of the build-
ing, or its market value, or on the basis of the rent arrived at by what
has aptly been described by Channell J ., The Assfssment Committee
F of the Brad-Ford-On-Aven Union v. White( 1) as the "higgling of the
market", and multiplying it by a numbq which, in the opinion of the
Legislature, would best serve the purpose of determining the value of
the building, and then to specify the rate of the tax on it. t
The value of a building is not merely the cost of its bricks and
mortar or other building material. It is therefore difficult to ascertain
G
that cost. It is also difficult to find out the market value of a building.
Doing so woUld, at any rate, take time l!.nd may be open to manipula-
tion or avoidable criticism, and may not provide a ready or conve-
nient basis of taxation. The Legislature cannot therefore be blamed
if it decides to link the levy with the annnal value of a building and
e prescribes a uniform formula for determining its capital value and
calculating the tax. . Annual value of a building hits in fact played· as
(!) [1898] 2 Q.B. 630.
D. C. GOUSE V. KERALA (Shingh~l, J.) 823

important a role in "rating" that, in a converse case, resort has some- A
times been taken to the capital value or cost of construction to work
H~. /
As has been stated by Faraday on Rating (fifth edition, page :.!41-
there are four recognised methods of arriving at the annual value of
a building,- B
1. The "competitive or comparative method" i.e., by find-
ing out rents actually paid for the building and/or
others of a similar kind. adjusting them to bring the
into line with statutory conditions, and thus arri ·ng
directly at an estimate of the rent. c
2. The "profits basis", or calculation by refer ce to
receipts and expenditure, usualy applied to public
utility undertakings.
3. The "contractor's method", by which it is assumed, n
the absence of any other and better way of estimating D
the rent, that the tenant would arrive at it by finding
· the figure for which a contractor would provide him
with premises neither more nor less suitable for his
purpose, and the rate or.:inlerest on that cost which the
contractor would charge him as rent.
E
4. The "unit method" by which schools may be valued
at So much a place, hospitals at so much a bed, or
certain industrial premises at so much a furnace, or
other unit of output.

There is nothing to prevent any of the four· methdl!s 'from being F
applied either singly, or in combination, as overall checks to the same
building. ·

The fundamental object in each of these methods is to find out the
rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for a build-
ing. . It is the expectation which is to be reasonable and not necessarily G
• the rent, for the reasonable expectation would exclude any so-called
black market rent. Halsbury (Vol. 23 p. 119 third edition) has in
fact defined "rate" tq mean "a rate the proceeds of which are applica-
ble to local purposes of a public nature and which is leviable on the
basis of assessment in respect of the yearly value of property." As
has been stated in "State and Local Taxation" by J. R. Hellerstein H
(page 684), increasing weight is being given to earnings as a weighty
factor in real estate tax valuations.
824 SU~REME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

There is however no rule of law as to the method of valuation to
be adopted for determining the annual value of a building. Where,
however, the building has been let at what is plainly a rackrent, that
rent is the best evidence of value if it has been fixed by the higgling
of the market. If therefore the Legislature selects that method to
determine the annual value of a building, the.re is neither /leason nor
• authority for holding that it is hypothetical or arbitrary.

What the Legislature has done under the Act is to make it clear Ir
that the tax is on buildings, and not on the 'grounds on which they
stand, or on lands. It has defined [in clase (e) of section 2] what a
"building" means: It has also defined in clause (a) of sectioµ 2 what
c is meant by "annual value" of a building and clause (i) of the same
section defines "capital value". Section 6 prescribes the mode of
determining the capital value of a building according to the formula of
sixteen times the annual value prescribed in clause (f) of section 2.
Having made these necessary provisions, section 5 states that a tax,
referred to as "building tax" in the Act, shall be charged at the rate
D
specilied in the Schedule etc. There are other ancillary provisions,
but it will be sufficient for us to say that, taken together, they contain
the entire scheme for the levy and collection of the building tax on the
capital value of the buildings. The expression "capital value" used
in the Act is not however the cost of construction of the building or its
market value as a wealth. It is a convenient or a working expression {
E
which may roughly be said to be the taxable value of the building, and
the State Legislature was quite competent to select that as the basis
for assessing the building tax.
Reference in this connection may be made to this Court's decision
in Khandise Sham Bhat and others v. The Agricultural Income Tax
F
Officer( 1) where it has been held as foVows at page 823,-
"Where there is. more than one method of assessing
tax and the Legislature selects one out of them, the court will
not be justified to strike down the law on the ground that the
Legislature should have adopted another method which, in ..
G the opinion of the court. is more reasonable, unless it is con-
vinced that the method adopted is capricious, fanciful, arbi-
trary or clearly unjust."
It may be mentioned that this Court has held in Assistant Commissioner
of Urban Land Tax (supra) that "for the pu.rpose of levyitlg tax
B under entry 49, List II, the State Legislature may adopt for determining
the incidence of tax the annual or the capital value of the lauds and
(I) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 809.
D. c. GOUSE v. KERALA (Shinghal, J.) 825
. IA. .
buildings." There is therefore no justifi~ation for the argument to the
contrary.
We may as well deal here with the 'ancillary argument that the
building tax could not, at any rate, have been based on the "gross
annual rent" of the building. Thus argument has arisen because
clause (a) of section 2 of the Act defines "annual value" as follows,- B
"annual value" of a building means the gro~ anaual rent
at which the buildi~g may at the time of completion· be
expected to let from month to month or from year to year."

• It is therefore true that the expected gross anriual rent has been made
the annual value of a building, but that, by itself, cannot be said c
to be open to objectiqn for two reasons. Fi±stly, there is nothing to
-prevent the Legislature from making the-expected gross annual rent,
and thereby the annual value of a building, from bei_ngi the unit for
multiplication by sixteen for arriving at its capital value for charging
the tax under section 5. Secondly, section 6 of the Act states that
for determining the capital value for the purposes of the Act, the animal D
value of a building shall be the "annual value fixed foc that building
in the assessment books of the local authority within whose area the
building is situate"' and a cross-reference to section 102(2) of the
Kerala Municipal Corporation Act, 1961, shows that while the annual
value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual
E
rent at which they may at tl1c time of assessment rcasonahly be expected
lo let from men th to month or from year to year, a deduction in the
case of buildings of fifteen per cent of that portion of such annual
rent which is attributable to the building alone apart from their sitesi
and adjacent lands occupied as appurtenances thereto shall be made
and that deduction shall be in lieu of all allowances for repairs or F
on any other account whatever. As by virtue of section· 6 of the Act
the same annua~ value forms the basis for determining the capital value
1 of the building for purposes of the Act, what really is taken as the
annual value under the delinition in clanse (a) of section 2 is N·ot th(l
gross annual rent but the net <ent after allowing for the cost of its
repairs etc. . A similar deduction has been provided under section G
100(2) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. It has not been dis-
puted before us that a provision exists in the law relating to Panchayats
also for actuaUy basing the tax on buildings at the prescribed percent..
age of the net annual rental value of the buildings.

It 1s not therefore factnally correctj to contend that the annual value ft
of buildings .in Kerala is determined on thet basis of their gross annual
rent, without any deduction on account of repairs etc., and there is
826 SUPREM.E COURT REPORTS (1980] 1 S.C.R.

A no force in the argument that determination of the capital value is,
arbitrary as it is arrived at by multiplying the gmss annual rent by
sixteen. But there is, eve!\ otherwise, no inherent illegality or vice
if the gross income of the property were to be capitalised for the
purpose of determining the value of the property. It has thus been
stated in American Jurisprudence, second edition, in para 762, on
.B which reliance has been placed by Mr. Govindan Nair as follows,-
."A valuation of real property for taxation may be made
by capitalizing gross income therefrom, if the percentage used
is sufficient to cover legitimate deductions and a fair net
return to the owner."
c
Reference may also be made to Faraday on Rating which shows
that the gross value of a building is often made the datum point by
statute and there is nothing unusual or illegal about it-particularly
when there are statutable deductions from it as in the present case.

D Then it has been argued that under thC1 Ktirala Municipal Corpota-
tiOIIl Act, 1961, the annual value is largely determined on the 6asis
of the value of the land on which the building has been constructed
and the land appurtenant thereto, but it is not permissible to make it
the basis of levying the tax on buildings iinder the Act as it purports
to be a tax only on buildings and not on lands or on lands and
E buildings. Reference for this argument has been made to that part
0£ section 102 (1) of the Kerala Municipal Corporation Act which
provides that a building shall be assessed '"together with its site and
other adjacent premises occupied as appurtenances thereto".

We have given our reasons for taking the view that the site or
F ground on which the building stands is a part of the building. It has
therefore to be taxed along with the fabric, for the two of them con-
s.titute the building. There is therefo;re no occasion to tax tlie site
separately, or to ascertain its value and add it to the value al' the j
fabric.
This is also the position in the case of appurtenances. An appur-
G tenance· has been defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as fol-
lows,-
"A thing that belongs to another, 'belonging'; a minor
property, right, or privileges, belooging to another more
important, and passing in possession with it; an appendage."
,H
An appurtenance thus belongs to the building concerned and has no
existence of its own. This Court had occasion to examine the meaning
D. c. GOUSE v. KERALA (Shinghal, J.) 827

of "appurtenance" in Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and A
others(1) and bas observed as follows (at page 1085) ,-
a
" "Appurtenance", in relation to dwelling, or to a
school, college .... includes all land occupied therewith and

- used for the purpose thereof (Words and Phrases Legally
Defined-Butterworths, 2nd edn.). "The word 'appurte-
nances' bas a distinct and definite meaning .... Prima facie
it imports nothing more than what is! strictly appertaining to
B

the subject-matter of the devise or grant, and which would,
in truth, pass without being specially mentioned : OrdinarilJ:,
what is necessary for the enjoyment and has been used for

- the purpose of the building, such as easements, alone will be
appurtenant. Therefore, what is necessary foti the enjoyment
of the building is alone cO\Vered by the expression 'appur-
c

. tenance'. If some other purpose was being fulfilled by the
building and the lands, it is not possible to contend that
those lands are covered by the expression 'appurtenances'.
Indeed 'it is settled by the earliest authority, repeated with- D
out contradiction to the latest, that land cannot be appur-
tenant to land. The word 'appurtenances' includes all the
incorporeal hereditaments attached to the land granted or
demised, such as rights of way, of common .... but it does
not include lands in addition to that granted'. (Words and
Phrase, supra).
E
In short, the touchsfone of 'appurtenance' is dependence
of the building on what appertains to: it for its use as a
building."
So even if it is presumed, as bas been argued before us,. that there is
some land as an appurtenance to a building, then if the word "appur- F
tenance" has been used in its true sense, it is an integral part of the
building to which it belongs, while if the word has been used loosely,
it will have its separate existence-quite apart from the building. In
either case, its value will not come in for addition to the annual
value of the building. It would not matter,. therefore, if uuder the
Corporation Act the annual value of a building includes the value G
of the appurtenances, for that is really the true annual value of the
building concerned.
Another argument which has been advanced is that the multiple
-l . of 16 for ascertaining the capital value of a building on the basis of
its annual value, is unrealistic and arbitrary and should be held fO be
B
'.''.'.~fiscatory". lt has been pointed out that competing returns from
(I) [1977] 1 S.C.R. 1072.
828 , SUPREME COURT .REPORTS (1980] l S.C.R.
-
investments range from 12 to 18 per cent on long term bank deposits.
It has also been argued that mere multiplication Oif the nnual value
would give au unrealistic value and is no'l .a satisfactory method of
arriving at the capital value.
As has been pointed out· earlier, the Legislature has decided to
impose a non-recun-ing tax on buildings in the State. It had therefore
B necessarily to go beyond the ascertainment of the annual value, and
adopt one of the several ways o~ ascertaining the capital value of build-

,..
ings. Am' if the Legislature chose to adopt the annual value as the
base for working out the capital value with reference to it, it cannrt
be blamed for 1t as, besides other advantages, it was readily availayie
from the records of the local authorities and was quite a simple and
reliable basis to work upon.
The controversy really centres round the choice of the multiple, to
work out the capital value. The Legislature has thought it proper to
define "capital value" of a building to mean the value arrived at by
multiplying the annual value of a building by sixteen. There wa9
0 nothing to prevent it from doing so for, as has been pointed out, it had
legislative competence to impose the building tax. And it is by now
well settled that the quantum of the tax levied by the taxing statute
and the conditions subject to which it is levied, are matters within.
the competence of the Legislature : Rai Ramkrishna and others1 v.
E The State of Bihar. (') It is also well settled that so Jong as the
tax is not confiscatory or extortionate, the ;reasonableness of the tax
cannot be questioned in a court of law : Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil
Nair v. The Strtte of Kera/a and another(') and Assistant Commis-
sioner of Urban Land Tax v. The Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd.
(supra).
F It has to be appreciated that investment in buildings is a conserva-
tive mode of raising income and even if it were presumed that it does
not yield t11e same quick results as some other forms of investment, it
cannot be denied that it involves lesser risk. So even if it yields a
j
return of not more than 6t per cent or so, it cannot be denied that,
unlike most of the other dependable investments, it has the considerable
G
advantage of giving to the investor a far greater return in the form
of a more or less continuous appreciation of the market value of the
buildings. I
Our attention has been invited to certain modes of investment by

H
way of fixed deposits, or national savings certificates, which, we are told, .J:
(I) [1964] I S.C.R. 897.
{2) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 77.
D. c. GOUSE v. KERAJ,A (Shinglzal, J.) 829

yield income ~pto about 10 per cent per annum, and would be higher A
than the conservative 6t per cent yield on rnal estate. But it cannot
ibe forgotten that in fixed deposits and certificates the money and the
interest of the investor remain locked up until the expiry of the term
of the deposit or the certificate. The term of deposit is often quite
long if it has to yield income at the rate of 10 per cent or so. If
however the deposit is for a short period of say six months, the income B
from interest may not be far in excess of 6t per cent, which appear~
to be the basis for fixing the multiple at 16.

Mr. Dewan has invited our attention to a statement prepared by
him showing building tax on gross annual rent, and he has. argued that,
in one of the cases before. us, while the cost of construction o[ the c
building was only Rs. 2,79,686.20 its annual rental income is
Rs. 1,34,400.00, its capital value works to Rs. 21,50,400.00 ancj the
building tax on it will amount to, Rs. 3,04,610.00. It has been urged
that the building tax will thus be far in excess of the cost of construc-
tion, and would be extortionate. But the argument misses the point D
that only the cost of construction of the structure cannot be the full
capital value of the building. It also overlooks the fact that the entire
cost of construction, on Mr. Dewan's own showing, would be recovered
in about two years because of the high rental income, and if the owner
has to pay a non-recurring tax of Rs. 3,04,610.00, that will be less
than three years rental income, so that, thereafter, his investment. will E
be a source of a recurring income Qf Rs. 1,34,400.00 for as long ciS
the building lasts. There is nothing unreasonable in determining the
capital value of a building yielding so much annual rent without refer-
. ence to its cost of construction. A tax of such a nature cannot be
said to be arbitrary or confiscatory or extortionate. But evern if it were
. assumed that the income from a building is noi more than 6t per cent, F
and the whole of it is denied to the owner for a period of 16 years,
to coincide with the n:iultiple of 16, it cannot be gainsaid that after the
expiry of that period, the owner would, at any rate, be able to retain
the whole of the income and, in the meantime, benefit from the appre-
ciation of its marketl value as years go by. Such a taxing statute cannot
I G
·be said to be "colourable".

It has in fact been held by this Court in Raja Jagmmath Baksh Singh
'V. The State of Uttar Pradesh(') that,-
" ... the conclusion that a taxing statute is colourable
would not and cannot no.rmally be raised merely on the H
finding that the tax imposed by it is unreasonably high or
(I) [1963] I S.C.R. 220.
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 1 s.c.R.

A heavy, because the reasonableness of the extent of the levy
is always a matter within the competence of the Legislature. .t
Such a conclusion can be reached where in passing the Act
the Legislature has merely adopted a device and a cloak
to confiscatei the property of the citize~ taxed."
'
B Reference may also be made to S. Kadar v. State of Kerala(') for the
following observation,- ·
"Generally speaking, the amount or rale of a tax is a
matter exclusively within the legislative judgment and a~ long
as a tax retains its avowed character and does not confiscate
property to the State under the guise of a tax, its reasonable-
c ness is outside the judicial ken."
As has been stated by A.A. )3.ing on "the valuation of Real Estate",
second edition, page 232, "the most important, and perhaps the inost
controversial, and yet the least known phase of prqperty valuation
revolves about the procedure for the determination of a market rate of
D. capitalisation through which estimated future net income can be con-
verted into a sum of present value." The author has dealt with variOlus
methods of property valuation aud the mathematics thereof, but they
a.re approaches to a difficult problem and thej fact remains that no one
method is perfect, or final, or above criticism. As it is, wej are unable
to thin~ that the multiple of 16 suffer from auy constitutional or legal
E infirmity.

The legality of the building tax has however been challenged on the
further ground that the Act does not provide auy procedural maclunery
for the assessment of the annual value of buildings and is really a colour-
able exercise of legislative power. The argument has been advanced
F with refemece to sub-section (1) of section 5 and has been supported
on the basis of this Court's decisions in Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil
Nair v. The State of Kerala, Raja Jagannnth Baksh Singh v. Th~ State
of Uttar Pradesh and Rai Ramkrishna and others v. The. State of Bihar
(supra).

G · Sub-section ( 1) of section 5 qi' the Act, which is the charging
section, provides that the building tax shall be charged at the rate
•
specified in the Schedule where its capital value exceeds Rs. 20,000/-.
Clause (f) of section 2 states that the "capital value'' of a building
means the value arrived at by multiplying its annual value by 16. So
if the. annual value of a building cau be ascertained with finality, by
H auy satisfactory procedure prescribed by .law, it would only require it&

(1) [1975) J S.C.R. 121.
D. C. GOUSE v. KERALA (Shinghal, J.) 831

multiplication by 16 to determine its capital value, aud then to asses~ A
the building tax leviable on it would be a matter of simple arithmatical
cafculation according to the table given in the Schedule.

Section 6 of the Act provides the mode of determining the capital
·value of a building. For purposes of ·the argument under consi-
deration sub-section (1) of that section alone arises for consider-
ation b~ause it is not disputed that sub-section (2), which deals
with a case where the annual value fixed in the assessment books
of the local authority is held to be "too low", and sub-section ( 3),
1',. which deals with a case where the capital has not been fixed at all,
~ are on a different footing. For them, the factors for determining
the annual value, and the assessing and the appellate and. revisional c
authorities etc. have all been provided by the Act and there is no
grievance on that account. The question is whether determining
capital value on the basis of the annual value recorded in the assess-
ment books of the local authority concerned is arbitrary because of
the absence of the necessary machinery for its determination.
D
Sub-section (1) of section 6 reads as follows:-
"6.(1). For determining the capital value for the pur-
poses of this Act, the annual value of a building shall be
the annual value fixed for that building in the assessment
books of the local authority within whose area the building E
is situate."

It therefore accepts the annual value fixed for a building in the
books of the local authority as .correct. But that would not justify
the argument that doing so is illegal or unreasonable as long as it
can be shown that what is entered to the assessment books of the F
local authority has been arrived at in accordance with a
satisfactory procedur.e laid down for it in the statute con-
cerned. Thus if it can be shown that the annual value, in the
case of a local authority, has been determined according to the pro-
, cedure laid down for it in the Act governing the constitution of the
local authority and the assessment and fixation of the annual value of
buildings situated .within its local area, and if that procedure is un-
exceptionable, then there is . nothing illegal or unconstitutional if
another taxing statute provides that the annual value so fixed and
recorded in the assessment books of the local authority shall be
accepted as correct and form the basis for the calculation of any
other tax or impost that may be permissible under the other statute. II
In such a case, where the necessary machinery for determining the
·annual value has been provided in the Act and/or the rules of the
1
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

local authority, there is no reason or necessity for providing another
machinery in the other Act and rules. Doing so would really mean
making avoidable and unnecessary provision, and may have the
disadvantage of creating confusion and inconsistency for no useful
purpose. A case of the nature contempl!ted by sub-section (2) of
section 6 is on a different footing for there are reasons to take the
B view that the annual value fixed for the building by the local autho-
rity is too low.
\..
Everything therefore turns on the question whether the law gov-
erning the levy and fixation of annual value of buildings in the areas
of the local authorities concerned provide the necessary procedure
c and the machinery for their assessment and final fixation. It is not
disputed before us that the three Acts which bear on the question
are the Kerala Municipal Corporation Act, 1961, the Kerala Munici-
palities Act, 1960, and the Kerala Panchayats, Act, 1960.
We had occasion to refer to section 102(2) of the Corporations
D Act earlier, with specific reference to the annual value of buildings.
Section 138 of that Act provides, inter alia, that the rules embodied
in Schedule II of the Act shall be read as part of the chapter on
"Taxation". Rules 4 to 16 provide the procedure and the
machinery for assessment of the property tax (which is oased on tbe
annual value), including tiJe procedure for moving the Commissioner
E by a revision petition to reduce the tax. Sub-rule (2) of rule 22
• provides for the bearing of such applications by the Commissioner
and for their determination by him under sub-rule (3). Rule 23
provides for the filing of appeal to the Standing Committee against
the revisional order of the Commissioner. Then there is provision
in rule 24 for the filing of appeal to the District Court and there is
F further provision in rule 26 to the effect that the Court may, if it
thinks fit, state a case on any appeal for the decision of the High
Court and shall do so whenever a question of law is involved if either
the Commissioner or the appellant applies in writing in that behalf.
Rule 27 provides for the disposal of the case by the District Court in
conformity with the decision of the High Court. Moreover rule 28
G provides for the correction of the assessment books according to the
decision of the Standing Committee, or the District Court. The Cor-
•
poration Act thus provides all the necessary procedure and
machinery for determining the annual value of buildings in a fair and
reasonable manner.
B We have gone through the provisions of the Muncipalities Act
also, in regard to the procedure and the machinery for determining
the annual value of buildings. Chapter VI of Part HT deals with
D. c. GOUSE v. KERALA (Shinghal, J.) 833

"Taxation and Finance". Section 150 states that the rules and
tables embodied in Schedule II shall be read as part of that Chapter.
Rules 7 provides that the value of the building for purposes of the,
property tax (including the annual value) shiill be determined by the
Commissioner. Rule 12 provides for the filing of a revision petition
-~
and rule 13 provides for its disposal only after hearing the revision
petitioner. Rule 24 provides for the filing of appeal to the Muni-
cipal Council against the Commissioner's assessment. Rule 30 pro-
vides for the appointment of Special Officer to exercise the Council's
appellate power. So the Municipal Act also provides the necessary
procedure and the machinery for the proper fixation of the annual
value of buildings.
c
In the Panchayat Act also, prov1s10n has been made in section
68 for ascertaining the annual rental value of buildings. Section
i44 provides for appeaJsl and revisions. Under sub-section (1) of
that section the appeal lies to the Panchayat and then under sub-sec-
tion (2) to the Deputy Director. Sub-section (3) gives power to
the State Government also to call for and examine the record and
pa£s an appropriate order. Then there are the Kerala Panchayats
(Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1963. That Act also thus provides
the necessary procedure and machinery for determining the annual
value of buildings in a satisfactory manner.
)
It is therefore futile to1 contend that them is no adequat" procedure E
or machinery in the three Acts mentioned above for the satisfactory
and proper determination of the annual value, of buildings. That value
can therefore very well be made the basis for determining the capital
value of a building and thereby fixing the building tax under :he
charging section. Moreover, sections 9 to 16 of the Act contain the
procedure and the machinery for the assessment of the building tax F
on the returns filed under sections 7 and 8. These provisions are
adequate in all respects and are not open to cha.!!enge with reference
to any of the cases cited by learned counsel.

' It has next been ~rgued that as the capital. value· of buildings is
bound to differ according to their location, the standard of their G
construction and the amenities and appurtenances etc. provided by
the~, t~e provision in the Act for ascertaining their capital value by
...-
-·
mulhplymg the annual value by 16 suffers from the vice of treating
unequals as equals. That, it has been urged, is discriminatory and
violative of article 14 of the Constitution.
H
. But the a_r~ment loses sight of the basic fa~t that the capital
value of a bmldmg has to be arrived at by multiplying the annual
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] I S.C.R.

A value by 16, and the Legislature has taken care to define "annual
value" to mean the annual rent at which the building may be expect-
ed to let. So if a building is situated in an important locality, or if
its standard of construction is high, or if it has attractive appurtenanc-
es etc. to it, it would be expected to fetch a higher rent than a build-
ing which does not have those advantages. The definition therefore
• takes care of any possible criticism that the Act suffers from the vice
of treating unequals as equals. It provides for the levy of a higher
building tax on buildings on which such levy would be justified,
because the incidence of the levy is a matter to be decided on the
basis · of its capacity to fetch rent. The argument to the contrary
(); js therefore quite untenable.

Section 29 of the Act declares, for the avoidance of doubt, that
in fixing the fair rent of a building under section 5 of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the rent control
court shall not take into consideration the building tax payable in
respect of the building under the Act. That has given rise to the
D
argument that -the provision is extortionate as it prevents the owner
from passing on the liability to the tenant.

This argument can be answered in three ways. Firstly, learned
counsel could not point to any of the cases before us in which such
E a question could be said to have arisen. It cannot therefore be said
to have arisen for consideration. Secondly, the building tax being
a non-recurring tax, payable by the owner once for all, without any
recurring liability, the question of passing it on to the tenant by split-
ting it up in proportion to the number of years of the tenancy, cannot
be Sljid to arise. Thirdly, learned counsel have not been able to
F refer to any provision of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Con-
trol) Act, 1965, under which the building tax could be taken into
consideration in fixing the fair rent of the building and section 29
of the Act has prevented that being done.

Lastly, it has been argued that while section 18 of the Act pro-
G vides that the tax may be paid in such instalments as may be pres-
<;ribed, the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11, which deals with
appeals1 renders that provision negatory as it states that no sucb
appeal shall lie unless the building tax has been paid. The concern
of the learned counsel in advancing this argument is justified; but if
the aforesaid provisions of sections 11 and 18 are read harmoniously
H it would appear that if an assessee is entitled to pay the building tax
in instalments under the prescription referred to in section 18, he will
,not be disentitled to file an appeal if he has paid those instalments
D. C. GOUSE v. KERALA (Shinghal, J.) 835
•
as and when they fall due. That is a fair and reasonable view to A
take of the relevant provisions of the Act, and we hold accordingly.
In the result, we find no merit in these cases and they are all
dismissed without any order as to the costs. We however think it
proper, in the circumstances in which all this controversy has arisen
and uncertainty about the true effect of the provisions of the Act has
been created, to direct that in cases where the building tax has not
been assessed so far, the assessing authority may give the assessees
an opportunity to produce evidence on which they may want to rely
• in support of their returns. In cases where the assessments have
been made, but the assessees could not or did not file their appeals
within the period specified therefor, we direct that they may be per- c
mitted to do so within a period of 30 days from the date of this
judgment and the appellate authority may admit those appeals as
the prosecution of these cases was sufficient cause for not presenting
them earlier. It is clarified that if any matter is pending before
the Government of Kerala under section 3 (2) of the Act, it will be
permissible for that Government to dispose it of according to the law. D
So also, in cases where the High Conrt has given an option or oppor-
tunity to any assessee to file fresh objections before the authority
concerned, under the provisions of the Act, it will be permissible for
him to do so. 1
P.B.R. Appeals dismissed. E

'