Strict compliance with statutory procedures is essential for valid property tax assessments; failure to do so renders tax demands illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioners in all these writ petitions are owners of buildings situated in Mannarkkad Municipality. They challenge the demand notices issued to them, demanding property tax. Directions are also sought to declare the demand of tax and penal interest imposed on them as being without authority of law. Several writ petitions have been filed challenging the assessment of property tax in various Municipalities carried out under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'). This batch of writ petitions relate to the demand notices issued to building owners in Mannarkkad Municipality, which was upgraded to Municipality only in 2015.

2. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.9903/2024 and W.P(C) No.9993/2024 are owners of buildings situated within the limits of Mannarkkad Municipality and they had paid property tax for various periods as per the earlier method of assessment. In the meanwhile, Municipality imposed property tax retrospectively from 2016-17, contrary to a decision taken by the Council. While some of the writ petitioners challenge the demand notices issued to them apart from directions to accept property tax at the revised rate only from 2023-24 onwards, some others have questioned the very revision of tax itself. Since the remaining writ petitions are either challenging the demand notices issued or the revision of tax, the details are not being narrated here.

3. In W.P.( C) No. 10139 /2025, the relief claimed is different. Petitioner in that writ petition has challenged a Government Order dated 18-05-2024, cancelling Decision No. 17/17 dated 16-09-2023 and Decision No.1/1 dated 04-10-2023 of the Mannarkkad Municipality. According to the petitioner, the Municipality had by Decision No.17/17, decided to levy the revised property tax only with effect from 2020-21 onwards. However, the Secretary of the Municipality raised an objection against the said decision and sought a review of the matter. The Council of the Municipality reconsidered the matter and as per Decision No.1/1 dated 04-10-2023, decided to stick to the decision already taken. Thereafter the Secretary forwarded the resolution of the Municipality as per section 49 of the Act to the Government. However, since there was no response from the Government, the Secretary issued an Order dated 02.11.2023 levying property tax on revised rates, as decided by the Council.

4. Subsequently, petitioner learnt that the Government cancelled the resolutions passed by the Municipality by a belated order. Petitioners contend that the Government lacks authority to cancel the resolutions since Government had not responded within a period of 15 days as per the second proviso to section 49(1)(b) of the Act. Thereafter, when the Municipality started issuing demand notices at revised rates for years prior to 2020-21, petitioner has approached this Court through the writ petition. The petitioner contends that the demand notices are barred under Section 539 of the Act. Petitioner also contended that the revision of rates and assessment of tax are without following the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is averred that, after the Mannarkkad Municipality came into being in 2015, a decision was taken by the Municipality on 19.09.2016, as per Resolution No.7 to implement the amended provisions of section 233 of the Act and the Rules thereon in the Municipality and to levy property tax on the basis of plinth area. After the upgradation of the Grama Panchayat into a Municipality, the process of verification of the buildings for the purpose of assessing the plinth area was a time consuming process due to insufficient staff. Pursuant to section 233 of Act, the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') came into force on 14.01.2011, and the minimum and maximum limits of rates of basic property tax were also notified by an order of the same date. Though t