IMPORTANT POINT
Tax assessments must comply with statutory procedures; non-adherence invalidates demand notices.

 JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The Perinthalmanna Municipality is the appellant before us in all these writ appeals that impugn a common judgment dated 01.03.2024 of a learned Single Judge in writ petitions preferred by persons aggrieved by the demand notices for arrears of property tax served on them by the Municipality.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ appeals are as follows:

The challenge in the writ petitions against the demand for arrears of property tax by the appellant Municipality was essentially twofold, namely, (i) that the demand notices were issued without assessing the basic property tax and annual property tax as per the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act read with the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as the “2011 Rules”] and in particular, Rules 4 and 10 of the 2011 Rules; and (ii) that the demand notices were barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act .

3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petitions, found as follows at paragraphs 16 to 20 of the impugned judgment:

“16. A reading of the Rules 2011 would show that, it is a complete code as far as the property tax assessment is concerned. The main point raised in these writ petitions is that the procedure prescribed in the Rules 2011 is not followed before issuing the demand notices. Most of the cases are filed against the assessment made by Perinthalmanna Municipality. Therefore, I will consider the counter and statement filed in W.P.(C). No.24090/2018 by the Perinthalmanna Municipality. In the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality, it is stated that, the demand notices are issued, strictly following the Rules 2011. It is submitted that for the purpose of levying the property tax, the Government of Kerala issued Ext.R1(a) notification fixing the maximum limit of rates of basic property tax applicable to one square metre plinth area of those categories mentioned in Section 233 (2) of Act 1994. Ext.R1(a) is the Malayalam translation of the Rules 2011. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in W.P.(C).No.24090/2018 that in terms of the statutory provisions, the Municipality is to fix the rate of basic tax applicable to the area of Municipality and notification classifying the area into different zones.

17. Ext.R1(b) deals about the guideline for collecting the property tax. Even though, it is stated in paragraph 6 of the counter that the Municipality has issued the notification in terms of Rule 10, the same is not seen produced in the counter. On the other hand, the petitioners seriously dispute the publication of such a notification as per Rule 10. Ext.R1(b) is not a notification issued under Rule 10 of the Rules 2011. It is true that in paragraph 8 of the counter, it is stated that, the contention of the petitioners that Rule 10 has not been followed by the Municipality is incorrect. But, that notification is not produced. This Court directed the Municipality to produce the notification, if any, issued under the relevant provisions of the Rules 2011.

18. Accordingly, a statement was filed by the counsel on 20.02.2024. Two notifications are produced along with the statement as Exts.R1(d) and R1(e). Ext.R1(d) is admittedly a notification issued under Rule 4(2) of the Rules 2011. Ext.R1(e) is the notification specifying the final rates of basic property tax fixed by the Municipality, the dates of its commencement and the period during which it will be in force. It is not clear in the counter affidavit or in the statement