The court upheld the principle that municipal tax demands must adhere to statutory procedures and are subject to limitation periods.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, who is an owner of a building situated within the territorial limits of the 2^nd respondent, being aggrieved by Exts.P2 to P37 demand notices, issued under the provision of the Kerala Municipality Act , requiring the petitioner, to pay the property tax in respect of the said building for the period from 2017-2018 to 2025-2026. The contention raised by the petitioner against the impugned demand notices is that the same are unsustainable in law. It was pointed out that, the present demands contained the amount of tax at the revised rates. This Court inThrissur Corporation v. Sangeetha Hotels [ 2025(4) KHC 563 ], held that, the rates were revised by the 2^nd respondent corporation without following the statutory procedure contemplated under the and the Rules framed thereunder and thus, the revision of rates was held to be unsustainable in law. Besides, it was also contented that the demand is hit by the period of limitation as contemplated under Section 539 of the and this aspect was also found against the 2^nd respondent-corporation inSangeetha Hotel's case. 2. I have heard Smt.Anjali Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Santhosh. P. Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and Smt. Reshmitha. R. Chandran, the learned Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent.

3. As far as the challenge raised by the petitioner against the impugned demand notices are concerned, the same is made by placing reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in Sangeetha Hotel's case. In the said decision, this Court categorically found that the revision of tax effected by the 2^nd respondent-corporation is not sustainable in law and it was also held that the corporation cannot demand the property tax beyond the period of three years preceding to the date of demand. In the said decision the corporation was directed to complete the process of revision of tax, after following the statutory procedure contemplated in this regard. It is reported that, the said proceedings are not finalised so far.

In such circumstances, in the light of the decision rendered by this Court as above, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P2 to P37 demand notices granting liberty to the 2^nd respondent-Corporation to assess the petitioner again for property tax, after the revised rates are fixed as directed by this Court in Sangeetha Hotel's case (supra). It is further clarified that, even while making a fresh assessment, the period of assessment shall be confined to three years preceding the date of such demand.

Sd/-