The court clarified the parameters for property tax assessment, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions in future evaluations.

JUDGMENT

This review petition is submitted to review of the judgment passed by this Court in the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition was against the demand of property tax, and the writ petition was disposed of in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Gateway Hotels Ekm v. Kochi Municipal Corporation [2025 (3) KHC 245] , wherein, it was held that the respondent corporation cannot recover the property tax for a period exceeding three years preceding the date of demand. Therefore, Exts.P17 to P29 demand notices were set aside, granting liberty to the respondents to reassess the building of the petitioners, confining the period of assessment to three years proceeding to the date of issuance of Exts.P17 to P29.

2. According to the petitioner, the review is necessitated because, apart from the question of limitation, the petitioner had also raised a contention in the writ petition, with regard to the rate of the tax assessed. The present assessment is made based on the annual rental value of the building, whereas, the rules as of now in existence only empower the respondent Corporation to assess the tax based on the plinth area. It was pointed out that while disposing of the writ petition, this contention was not brought to the notice of this Court even though the same was raised in this writ petition.

3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would contend that the rate was fixed based on the Government Order issued in this regard, which permits 25% minimum enhancement and the said Government Order is not under challenge. Therefore, it was contented that, no modification in the judgment is required.

4. In response to the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stipulations contained in the Government Order are against the statutory provisions in the Act, and therefore the challenge can be raised against the rate of tax even without challenging the Government Order.

5. Anyhow, after considering all relevant aspects, I am of the view that, since this Court has already set aside the demand notices issued by the Corporation, with a direction to the respondent corporation to reassess the petitioner’s building, confining the period of assessment to three years, I am of the view that, the contention referred to above, can also be raised before the authorities concerned by the petitioner, when the Corporation issues a notice of assessment to be made based on the directions passed by this Court in the judgment dated 15.07.2025.

This review petition is disposed of, in the light of the above clarification and the contention of the petitioner will have to be dealt with by the respondent Corporation taking note of the relevant rules applicable to the assessment.

Sd/-