The court upheld that demand notices for property tax must adhere to statutory procedures and time limits under the Kerala Municipality Act.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices issued by the respondents herein requiring the petitioner to pay the property tax in respect of the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2025-2026. The contentions raised by the petitioner are twofold. Firstly, it was contended that the demands are issued at the revised rates, which was fixed by the 1^st respondent Corporation without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Apart from the above, the demand contains the assessment years beyond the period of three years preceding to the date of demand, which is against the statutory time limit contemplated under Section 539 of the .

2. I have heard, Sri.M.R.Dhanil, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Santhosh. P.Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. As far as the issues raised by the petitioner are concerned, the same are already decided against the respondent Corporation in W.P.(C) No.2666/2024, where, it was found that the revised rates were fixed by the Corporation without following the statutory procedure in this regard. Thus, the revision of tax was set aside by this Court, by directing the respondent Corporation to redo the process of the revision of tax after fulfilling the conditions in the Statute. It was also observed that, the Corporation cannot issue a demand notice for a period exceeding three years preceding to the date of demand in the light of Section 539 of Kerala Municipality Act as well. The decision rendered by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2666/2024 is also confirmed by the Division Bench. In such circumstances, an interference is required.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Exts.P1 and P2, granting liberty to the respondents to issue fresh demand notices to the petitioner, upon fixing the revised rates of tax by following the procedure contemplated under the Statute. It is further clarified that, while issuing a fresh demand notice, it should be ensured that the period of assessment is confined to three years preceding to the demand. It is also clarified that the directions would not preclude the petitioner from making the payment of the current tax.