Point of Law : Entire tax for the period in question was paid by the petitioner as levied by the authority and the same is disputed by the Municipality, it is for the authority to find out as to whether the entire tax assessed was paid by the petitioner for the disputed period. Even though the constitutional validity of Section 234 of Act, 1994 is questioned in the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exts. P4, P11, P14 and P16 demand notices and consequential orders passed by the Secretary of the Thiruvalla Municipality and the Finance Standing Committee directing him to pay the property tax; to declare that Section 234(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (substituted by the Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 1999 and omitted later by the Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 2009 as unconstitutional and void; to issue a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 1 to 3 from assessing or collecting property tax without authority of law in respect of the petitioner's building constructed vide permit No. BP No. 69/0405 comprised in resurvey No. 205/32 of Thiruvalla Municipality and located in ward No. 13 of the Thiruvalla Municipality; and a further writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to refund an amount of Rs.10,79,339 collected from the petitioner vide Ext. P5 series together with interest at the rate of 12%.

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

The petitioner is the co-owner of a commercial building having an extent of about 26,000 sq. feet located within the limits of the Thiruvalla Municipality, respondent No.1. He individually owns about 16,200 sq. feet out of the aforesaid total area. Earlier, the Secretary of the Municipality, the third respondent, issued several notices demanding payment of an amount of Rs.10,79,339 as property tax for a period of 4 years, as is evident from Ext. P5 series.

3. According to the petitioner, he remitted the said tax; however, the exorbitant and illegal demand was challenged by him by filing W.P.(C) Nos. 31173 of 2008 and 17758 of 2009 before this Court. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court as per Ext. P6 common judgment directing the Standing Committee for Finance, Thiruvalla Municipality, respondent No.2, to consider the appeals to be filed by the petitioner before them. Pursuant to the same, Exts.P7 and P12 appeals were filed. However, the second respondent, by a single line order, disposed of the said appeals as per Ext. P14 decision dated 24.01.2012, is the contention advanced by the petitioner.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per Ext. P16, the annual property tax now fixed in respect of the portion of the property owned by the petitioner is Rs.2,51,064/. The legal contentions advanced by the petitioner is that the respondents are legally bound to fix the property tax based on the annual value of building and such annual value is dependent on the actual rent received/receivable as per Sections 233 and 234 of the Act, 1994 as amended by the Act, 14 of 1999. It is further submitted that as per Ext. P8 deed, the petitioner rented out the entire portion of the building owned by him and the annual rent as on today is only Rs.4,83,000/-. But, while issuing Exts.P14 and P16, Ext. P8 lease deed executed by the petitioner with the tenant was not even considered.

5. It is further pointed out that as per Section 236 of the Act, 1994 (later omitted by the Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 2009, taxes have to be uniform for similarly placed buildings. Whereas, Exts.P9 and P10 information and photographs would show that similarly placed buildings were assessed at much lower rates. It is further contended that Section 234(2) of the Act, 1994 stipulates that the property tax shall be assessed in the prescribed manner on the basis of the annual value of any buildings and the lands adjacent to it and that as per Section 234(4) of Act, 1994, the Government is mandated to make rules regarding the person by whom and the intervals at which the annual value of buildings, the deduction or addition in the tax to be made etc,, is to be determined and the procedure for the realisation of tax amount. Whereas, since no rules were framed in accordance