Point of Law: Section 231, as it stood prior to amendment with effect from 07.10.2009, deals with resolution of council deciding to levy tax.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner society seeking a direction to quash Ext.P1, P1(a) and P6(a) demand notices/intimation issued by the Secretary of the Payyannur Municipality, the first respondent, directing the petitioner to pay property tax from 01.10.1998 in accordance with the decision taken by the Finance Standing Committee; for a declaration that the Secretary of the Municipality has no power to enhance/refix and demand property tax which was once assessed, concluded and demanded by the competent Municipal Council and received from the petitioner; and to further declare that Ext.P1 and P1(a) are barred by law of limitation prescribed under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (Act, 1994 for short).

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner was paying half yearly property tax as assessed by the competent Municipal Council of the second respondent Municipality against an auditorium building bearing door No. PMC/XXIII/483A. According to the petitioner, it purchased the building in the year 2010 and till such time tax was being paid by the owner of the property and from 2010 onwards, the petitioner was paying tax at the rate assessed under Chapter XIV of the Act, 1994.

3. It is further submitted that abruptly, the Secretary of the Municipality issued Ext.P1 notice and P1(a) special notice informing the petitioner that the tax was enhanced to Rs. 17,640/- on the basis of a vigilance report dated 06.10.2012 and insisted it to pay the same retrospectively for a period of 15 years.

4. The contention put forth by the petitioner is that only the Municipal Council is vested with powers to assess, or enhance, or re-fix, or impose the property tax. However, it is evident from Ext.P1 and P1(a) notices that the first respondent enhanced and re-fixed the property tax which was once assessed by the competent Municipal Council. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the demand raised as per Ext.P1(a) special notice itself is bad. It is also contended that tax once assessed and concluded by the Council and received on the basis of the demand cannot be revised unilaterally by the Secretary of the Municipality. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention is that the amount required to be paid as per Ext.P1 notice and Ext.P1(a) special notice will not come under the terminology ‘property tax’ as the same is not assessed by the Council under Chapter XIV of the Act, 1994.

5. That apart, it is pointed out that the demand is enhanced from Rs. 1,422/- to Rs. 17,640/- and that too after 15 years. Therefore, according to the petitioner, any demand beyond the period of three years is bad under Section 539 of the Act, 1994.

6. The Secretary and the Municipality have filed a joint counter affidavit refuting the allegations and the claims and demands raised by the petitioner.

7. The basic contention advanced is that the writ petition is not maintainable, since there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner by filing a revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. That apart, it is submitted that the Secretary has not enhanced the tax in an arbitrary manner; but notice was issued enhancing the tax, since the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department conducted an inspection and found that the tax levied on the building is less and accordingly, directed to reconsider the same taking into account the renovation done in the auditorium. Accordingly, it is submitted that the demand was raised under special circumstances and therefore, the limitation prescribed under Section 539 of Act, 1994 would not come into play, and the contentions advanced by the petitioner in that regard cannot be sustained under law.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.V. Amaresan and the learned counsel for the Municipality Sri. M. Sasindran and perused the pleadings and material on record.

9. The learned counsel for the pet