High Court verdict which brings relief

These days, building a house is not a dream for the common man—it’s more like a nightmare. The soaring prices of construction materials and rising labour costs have caused house budgets to spiral out of control. Some people end up spending nearly as much on interior decoration as they do on the house itself. While this used to be a trend among the wealthy, now even the middle class is spending considerably on interiors, driven by the belief that one must keep pace with society. Despite careful budgeting, homeowners often find themselves financially drained by the end of a construction project.

On top of all this come government-imposed taxes. Unlike in the past, building tax is no longer a small amount. For houses even under 3,000 square feet located within corporation limits, the average annual tax can go up to Rs 5,000. Additionally, an average one-time tax of around Rs 20,000 must be paid at the village office. Many people complain that the taxes imposed by local bodies on homes are excessively high. Beyond the floor area, taxes were also levied on open terraces built atop houses—an arrangement that felt like punishing homeowners.

However, a recent High Court judgment has brought relief. According to a verdict by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, open terraces above houses and establishments are not subject to building tax, a ruling welcomed by the general public. Most people do not install open terraces as a luxury, but rather to protect the house from heat and leakage. The judgment states that temporary roofs used to protect buildings from weather cannot be considered part of the plinth area.

However, if the terraces are covered or enclosed, tax can be imposed. If they are used for commercial purposes, tax is also applicable. The verdict was in favour of residents from Cherthala who had challenged an additional tax of Rs 2,80,800 levied on the open terrace above a commercial building. The government argued that the parapet area was partially enclosed and that the petitioners stored materials there. But the court clarified that parapets are part of a building’s safety features, and that storage of items does not count as commercial use. On that basis, the court delivered its reassuring judgment.