The appellant remains liable for property tax despite pending litigation, barring penal interest due to the lack of formal demand notices.

1. The petitioner in writ petition No.30044 of 2023 is the appellant before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 17/11/2023 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.

2. Since the long and chequered history of litigation between the appellant and the respondent Corporation has already been detailed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, we do not choose to reiterate the same in this judgment. The limited issue involved in the writ petition, against the backdrop of the main dispute between the parties, was essentially with regard to the liability of the appellant / writ petitioner to pay property tax for the unauthorised construction and occupancy of areas earmarked as recreational area and car park in the approved plan pertaining to the building, on the basis of which the construction was effected. It is not in dispute that the construction of the building as per the approved plan was completed in 2001 and the completion certificate was issued to the appellant as early as on 05/03/2001. The occupancy certificate with regard to the area in question was also issued in 2001. It is also not in dispute that during the period from 2001, when the occupancy certificate was issued, upto the year 200910, the appellant had paid the property tax in respect of the areas aforementioned in the building in question. The grievance in the writ petition was essentially with regard to the demand of property tax made by the respondent Corporation for the periods from 2009-10 to 2021-22 when the appellant refused to pay the tax dues for the disputed areas by citing the pendency of litigation pertaining to the main dispute between the parties. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was essentially a technical one: that the respondent Corporation had not issued any demand notice seeking recovery of the property tax dues from the appellant for the years 2009-10 to 2021-22 till 12/09/2022 when the impugned notices were issued to the appellant. It was the case of the appellant that the issuance of the said notices were in violation of the provisions of S.539 of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994.

3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petition, found that inasmuch as it was the appellant who had taken up the matter regarding alleged unauthorised construction with the statutory authorities as also before this Court in various proceedings that were initiated by it, and the deferment of issuance of recovery notices by the respondent Corporation was on account of the pendency of the said litigation before the various adjudicatory forums, the appellant could not be heard to contend that the demand made against him by the Corporation was hit by the provisions of limitation. It was the finding of the learned Single Judge that an act of Court could not prejudice any one and since the litigation challenging the orders of the respondent Corporation, that directed a demolition of the structures put up by the appellant in the disputed premises, was pending consideration before various adjudicatory forums, it was not open to the appellant to contend that the liability to property tax did not arise merely because there was no demand for the same by the respondent Corporation. The learned Single Judge, however, noticed the lapse on the part of the Corporation in not issuing the formal demand notices and exempted the appellant from the obligation to pay penal interest on the property tax dues. The writ petition was disposed by quashing the impugned demand notices and directing the appellant to pay the tax as demanded, without the penal interest, but together with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective due dates of payment for each financial year.

4. Before us, the contention of Sri. P. G. Jayasankar, the learned counsel for the appellant is mainly that the learned Single J