JUDGMENT : K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the building tax assessment, which, according to the petitioner, cannot be sustained for reason of the use to which the first floor of the building is put. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is residing in the ground floor and the first floor is used for a commercial purpose, i.e. a business run by the petitioner herself. In such circumstance, no levy could be made under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 ("Act" for short), is the contention. It is also submitted that the petitioner started residing in the building from 01.04.1999 and in such circumstance, the completion, has to be on a prior date, from that provided in Section 5A in which circumstance, again, the levy would not be possible. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained a sanction for constructing a residential building, as per Ext.P1 dated 26.06.1997. The validity of the permit was up to 25.06.2000. The petitioner is said to have constructed a building, as seen from Exts.P2 and P3 and the Municipality assessed the building as per Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is dated 07.05.1999. The petitioner was sought to be assessed under the Act, in the year 2002. 3. The proceedings are evident from the counter affidavit filed by the State. The Village Officer is said to have inspected the building on 02.08.1999 and submitted a report, based on which notice was issued to the petitioner under Form III. The petitioner filed a return on 15.10.1999 showing the nature of the building as residential building and the date of completion and occupation as 01.09.1999 and 12.09.1999 respectively. The plinth area of the building, however, was shown as 201 square meters. On the dispute raised with respect to the plinth area, which was stated to be 301.3 square meters by the Village Officer, a notice was issued to the petitioner and the Deputy Tahsildar (Building Tax) inspected the building on 29.01.2000. The measurement revealed a plinth area 297.55 square meters. The building, hence, was assessed under the Act under Sections 5 and 5A. 4. The dispute raised herein is with respect to the luxury tax assessed. The contention raised of the occupation having commenced from 01.04.1999, is not supported by any evidence. In fact, the said contention goes against the petitioner's own submission in the return filed before the Assessing Authority. 4. The dispute raised herein is with respect to the luxury tax assessed. The contention raised of the occupation having commenced from 01.04.1999, is not supported by any evidence. In fact, the said contention goes against the petitioner's own submission in the return filed before the Assessing Authority. As is seen from the counter affidavit, the return showed the date of completion as 01.09.1999 and the date of occupation as 12.09.1999. There can be no reliance placed on Ext.P4 also to conclude a completion prior to 01.04.1999, since, the date from which the assessment was made is not evident in Ext.P4. Ext.P4 certificate also has been issued after 01.04.1999. 5. The further contention is that the first floor of the building is used as a commercial space. It is to be noticed that Section 5A speaks of a levy of luxury tax on all residential buildings having a plinth area above 278.7 square meters. The user of such building is not relevant. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for and constructed a residential building. There is no category change effected with the local authority. The issue also is covered by a judgment of this Court, reported in Ayshakunji vs. Tahsildar, 2012 (4) KLT 193 . The mere ground of a part of a residential building being used for a commercial purpose, was held to be inconsequential for determining the luxury tax liability under Section 5A of the Act. For all the above reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the assessment of luxury tax under Section 5A of the Act. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs.