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) 10154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
BABU PAUL – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY, KOCHI, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 30211 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR, SRI.TINU T.JOSEPH, SMT.MEGHA MUKUNDASWAR, SHRI.SANOJ M.A.
For the Respondents: SRI.R.HARISHANKAR

The limitation period under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act restricts property tax recovery to three years preceding the demand date.

Headnote:The writ petition challenges a property tax demand under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rule 95 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2011. The court upheld the petitioner's claim regarding limitation, quashing the demand for 2017-2024 as invalid and permitting reassessment restricted to three years prior to the notice date. The court emphasized addressing the benefits under Rule 9(5) in any fresh assessments.

Table of Content
1. the petitioner challenges a property tax assessment. (Para 1)
2. court hears arguments from both parties. (Para 2)
3. assessment quashed due to limitation period. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a multi-storied building situated within the territorial limits of the 1st respondent. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 demand notice, requiring the petitioner to pay the property tax, for the period from 2017-18 to 2024-25. One of the specific grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the demand raised by the 1st respondent is hit by the period of limitation contemplated under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act . Apart from the above, it is also contended that, the assessment was made without taking into account Rule 95 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2011.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, and the learned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent.

3. I find that the issue raised by the petitioner with regard to the limitation is upheld by this Court in Gateway Hotels Ekm v. Kochi Municipal Corporation [2025 (3) KHC 245] , wherein, it was held that the 1st respondent Corporation cannot recover the property tax for a period of three years preceding to the date of demand. In such circumstances, Ext.P1 cannot be sustained, as it contains demand for the period from 2017-18 onwards, and the said notice was issued only on 15.05.2024.

In such circumstances, Ext.P1 is disposed of, quashing Ext.P1, granting liberty to the 1st respondent to reassess the petitioner after issuing notice to him and confining the period of assessment to three years preceding to the date of Ext.P1. It is also ordered that, if any, fresh assessment proceedings are initiated, the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the benefits under Rule 9(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2011, shall also be taken into account.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

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