IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
SCARIA KURIAKOSE – Appellant
Versus
KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 11305 OF 2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to property tax demand. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding limitations and tax imposition. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on demand validity. (Para 4 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to challenge the demand of property tax pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices with reference to 2010 to 2015 and 2016 to 2022 respectively.
2. Heard Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. Joice George, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that;
i. The demand as above is barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act,1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
ii. The tax is being demanded with reference to the terrace portion of the building, which though covered on sides originally, is not covered on sides from 2013 - 2014 onwards.
4. Therefore, according to him, the tax could not be demanded under any circumstances and with such a request, the petitioner has already approached the Secretary of the Municipality, as evidenced by Ext.P3.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent Municipality would point out that the tax has been demanded with respect to the building as it originally existed and therefore the same is validly enforced against the petitioner.
6. There cannot be any dispute that the tax being demanded as seen from Exts.P1 and P2 is beyond the period prescribed under the provisions of Section 539 of the Act. That being so, there will be a direction to the Secretary of the Municipality to take note of the provisions of of the Act and to revise the demand pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 accordingly.
6. There will also be a direction to the municipality to take note of the stand taken in Ext.P3 and verify as to whether the terrace portion is covered on all sides and apply the principles laid down in Xavier J. Ponnezhath v. State of Kerala [ 2025 (2) KLT 715 ] wherein it has already been held that a mere roof on the top of the building does not require to be taken for the purpose of imposition of tax.
With the afore directions, this writ petition would stand disposed of.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.