JUDGMENT : A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The State has preferred this Writ Appeal against the judgment dated 04.12.2018 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.14732 of 2013. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: The Writ Petition was preferred by the respondent herein challenging the demand made by the appellants for collection charges in connection with revenue recovery proceedings that were initiated against them for recovering arrears of luxury tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act. 3. The respondent assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of running hotels. The appellants herein had issued a demand notice under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act demanding arrears of luxury tax for the assessment year 2005-06 along with collection charges at the rate of 5% for arrears up to Rs.5 lakhs and at the rate of 7.5% for arrears above Rs.5 lakhs. The total amount demanded towards arrears was a sum of Rs.5,73,379/-. 4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Deputy Tahsildar (RR) v. Vijaya Builders [ 2016 (1) KLT 684 ] to hold that collection charges could not be realised when there was no recovery effected by way of revenue recovery proceedings. In particular, it was found that when payment was made directly to the requisitioning authority or when payments were made under a One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme, the collection charges could not be realised. The learned Single Judge, therefore, set aside the demand of collection charges from the respondent and directed the appellants herein to refund the amounts collected by way of collection charges. It was also made clear that if the refund was not granted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment the amount would carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 01.04.2013 onwards. 5. Before us, it is the submission of Smt. Resmitha Ramachandran, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants that the reliance by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of the Division Bench in Vijaya Builders (Supra) is wholly misplaced. 5. Before us, it is the submission of Smt. Resmitha Ramachandran, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants that the reliance by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of the Division Bench in Vijaya Builders (Supra) is wholly misplaced. It is pointed out that the said decision pertains to a case where the amount due from a partnership firm that had availed financial assistance from Kerala Financial Corporation was settled by way of a One Time Settlement Scheme. She points out that, not only was the amount due in that case from a financial institution to which the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act had been extended, but the settlement of the liability was also under a One Time Settlement Scheme. It is her contention that the factual situation obtaining in the present case is wholly different since it is a recovery of tax dues from an assessee, who qualifies as a defaulter. It is her further contention that when it comes to recovery of tax dues, it is the provisions of Rule 4 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968 that will apply and not Rule 5 of the said Rules. It was the latter Rule that came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge in Cochin Port Trust v. State of Kerala [2008 (1) ILR 718], in which a view in favour of the assessee was taken. It is contended, therefore, that the said decision of the learned Single Judge would also not come to the aid of the respondent assessee in the instant case. 6. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri. Aji V.Dev the learned counsel for the respondent herein that the decision in Vijaya Builders (Supra) is authority for the proposition that so long as the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act were not relied upon for recovering the amounts due from the assessee, the collection charges could not have been recovered from the respondent. He also places reliance on an earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Usha Mary v. Kerala Financial Corporation and Others [ 2009 (4) KHC 254 ], wherein the Division Bench had declared Item (viii) under Rule 4, and Rule 5(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, as unreasonable and discriminatory and ultra vires the parent Act and the Constitution of India. As for the last mentioned precedent, however, we have been shown a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Shibu Kumar [2018 KHC 4653] that set aside the judgment of this Court in Usha Mary (Supra) and obliges the High Court to take up cases individually and look into the facts of each case to take a decision with regard to the legality of the recovery of collection charges. 7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that this appeal must necessarily succeed. The dues outstanding from the respondent assessee were under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. Section 10A of the said act clearly authorises the invocation of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for the purposes of recovery of outstanding dues of tax under that Act. In particular, the statutory provision makes it clear that any amount of tax, penalty, interest, or any other amount payable by any person under the Act, and remaining unpaid, shall be a first charge on the property of such person and may be recovered as an “arrear of pubic revenue due on land”. Under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the provisions of the Act have been made applicable for the recovery of public revenue due on land and the provisions under that Act, both substantive and procedural, would come into play while proceeding thereunder for recovery of dues that have been categorised as public revenue due on land. Rule 4 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules clearly mandates that batta and other charges at the rates specified in the table below the Rules shall be levied in respect of the corresponding item specified against them in the table. It is clarified that the said charges shall be recovered from the defaulters along with the arrears due. Sl.No.(viii) under the table deals with collection charges and quantifies the same at 5% of the arrears to be collected, when the arrears do not exceed Rs.5 lakhs and 7.5% of the arrears to be collected when the arrears exceed Rs.5 lakhs. It is clarified that the said charges shall be recovered from the defaulters along with the arrears due. Sl.No.(viii) under the table deals with collection charges and quantifies the same at 5% of the arrears to be collected, when the arrears do not exceed Rs.5 lakhs and 7.5% of the arrears to be collected when the arrears exceed Rs.5 lakhs. It is clear, therefore, that whenever the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are made applicable for the collection of dues by the Government, the allied provisions of Rule 4 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules would come into play and determine the charges that could be collected from the defaulters along with the principal arrears that are due from him. Although Item (viii) in the table under Rule 4 was declared as unreasonable, discriminatory, and ultra vires the provisions of the parent Act and the Constitution of India by the Division Bench of this Court in Usha Mary (Supra), the said decision was subsequently overturned by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Shibu Kumar (Supra). Hence, as per the extant law, the demand of collection charges under Rule 4 will have to be sustained in the absence of any challenge to the Rule itself in the Writ Petition. On the aspect of applicability of the Rule to the factual situation obtaining in the instant case, there cannot be any dispute since the recovery of arrears of luxury tax by resort to the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was authorised by the parent statute, namely, the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act itself. Thus, we cannot sustain the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow this appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.