SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
MUKKATT SEBASTIAN – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY, PALA MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 22356 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI, SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
For the Respondents: SC- SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, GP- RIYAL DEVASSY

Property tax demand can only be levied after the issuance of an occupancy certificate.

Headnote:This judgment concerns WP

(C) NO. 22356 OF 2022, where the petitioner contests property tax demands prior to obtaining an occupancy certificate, citing precedent from Baiju M. v. Secretary, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation. The court found that tax demands could only begin post-occupancy certificate issuance. Accordingly, demands for the prior period were quashed.

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 can only be made from the year 2022-23. The demand in Exts.P5 to P8 to the extent it levied property tax for a period prior to 2022-23 is set aside.

With the above said direction the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top