J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner claims to be a Charitable Trust running the Prime College of Engineering for Women situated at Kodumbu in Palakkad District. The Engineering College is affiliated with the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P9 to P11, notices issued by the Kodumbu Grama Panchayath demanding various property tax on the petitioner's building from the financial year 2012-

13 till the present date.

2. Initially, the tax notices were issued under Exts.P5 and P6. Petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P6, which demand various property taxes for four years i.e., 2012-2013 to 2015- 2016. The petitioner received these two notices on 15th July, 2016.

3. Aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P6 notices, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.25703 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of vide the judgment dated 19.08.2022 permitting the petitioner to file suitable objection to Exts.P5 and P6 notices. Petitioner had filed the objection, and thereafter, fresh demand notices were issued.

4. Section 243 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, prescribe the limitation for recovery of dues. Sub-section (1) of the Section 243 provides that no distraint shall be made, no suit shall be instituted and no prosecution shall be commenced in respect of any tax etc., due to a Panchayat under Kerala Panchayath Raj Act or any rules or bye-law, or order made under it after the expiration of a period of three years from the date on which the distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or the prosecution could have been commenced, as the case may be.

5. The relevant portion of Section 243 is extracted hereunder:

“243. Limitation for recovery of dues. - (1) No distraint shall be made, no suit shall be instituted and no prosecution shall be commenced in respect of any tax or other sum due to a Panchayat under this Act or any rule or bye-law, or order made under it after the expiration of a period of three years from the date on which the distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or the prosecution might first have been commenced, as the case may be, in respect or such tax or sum:

[Provided that in the case of assessment under sub- section (2) the above said period of three years shall be computed from the date on which destraint, suit or prosecution might first have been made, instituted or commenced, as the case may be, after making such assessment.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contrary to this contained in this Act or the rules made there under, where for any reason, a person liable to pay any tax or fees leviable under this Act has escaped assessment, the Secretary may at any time within four years from the date on which such tax should have been assessed, serve on him a notice assessing the tax or fee due and demand the payment within fifteen days from the date of serving such notice and thereupon the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under shall apply as if the assessment of such tax or fee was made in time.

(3) Where any tax or other amount due to a panchayat has been barred by limitation under sub-section (1), due to the default of taking steps at the appropriate time and it is found in a lawful enquiry that it was lost due to the default of any officer or offices, the amount so lost to the panchayat shall be realised with twelve percent interest thereon from such officer or officers.]”

Thus, from the reading of the provisions in Section 243, it is evident that Panchayat can demand tax for a period upto three years prior to the date of issuance of the notice. In this case, the notice was issued on 15.07.2016 for demanding various property taxes for four years i.e., 2012-13 to 2015- 2016. Going by the date of the notice, the demand for property tax in respect of the financial year 2012-2013 is hit by the limitation as prescribed under Section 243 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, and therefore, the demand for prope