Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
MUKKATT SEBASTIAN – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY, PALA MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to prior property tax demands. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. hearing of the respondent's counsel. (Para 3) |
| 3. property tax demand timeframe established. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2026 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to challenge Exts.P5 to P8 arrear demand notices issued by the 1st respondent.
2. Petitioner undertook construction of a building and the same was completed as early as on 12.06.2020. But in respect of the said building the occupancy certificate was issued only on 23.03.2022 as evident from Ext.P2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the demand for property tax could be made only after the occupancy certificate is issued by the 1st respondent. Petitioner submits that the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of this Court in Baiju M. v. Secretary, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation [2023 (6) KHC 72] and also the Circular No.R.C2./100/2020 LSGD dated 03.05.2020.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality.
4. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, and the fact that occupancy was granted only on 23.03.2022, I am of the opinion that any demand for property tax
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
