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) 19272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
Daisy Sebasitan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO.36851 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.Rajesh, Jerry Jaison, Gopakumar P.
For the Respondents: Sailaj Ramachandran, Arun P. Antony, Deepa, SPL GP (LSGD)

Property tax demands set aside if time-barred under Section 539 or procedure not followed; requires fresh consideration.

Headnote:Under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 and Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011, property tax demands were issued for periods 2013-14 to 2023-24. Petitioner challenged demands as time-barred and non-compliant with procedural rules. Court found prior payments evidenced and issues unaddressed in notices. Petitioner contended assessments barred by limitation under Section 539 for periods up to 2019-20 and demands unenforceable without prescribed procedure, relying on Division Bench rulings. Court observed points not adjudicated in impugned notices, requiring reconsideration. Impugned notices set aside; direction issued to reconsider limitation and procedural compliance; licence renewal not to be deferred.

Table of Content
1. hearing of counsel for parties. (Para 1)
2. challenges to property tax demands on limitation and procedure grounds. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.V.Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Sailaj Ramachandran, learned Standing Counsel for the Ettumanoor Municipality, and Smt.K.R.Deepa, the learned Special Government Pleader (LSGD).

2. The challenge in this writ petition is against the demand of property tax under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 , with respect to the period from 2013-14 to 2023-24 by Exts.P6 series and for the period 2021-22 to 2023-24 by Exts.P7 and P7(a), as well as for the period from 2015-16 to 2023-24 by Exts.P7(b) to P7(d). The contention raised by the petitioners in this case is to the effect that:-

i. the assessments are barred by limitation with reference to the provisions of Section 539 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 , and therefore, the demand for the period up to 2019-20 has to be declared as time barred;

ii. even with respect to the demand for the subsequent periods, since the demand is sought to be enforced without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules prescribed, the demands could not be enforced as held by a Division Bench of this Court inPerinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem [2025 (4) KLT 888] andThrissur Corporation v. Sangeetha Hotels [ 2025 (4) KLT 274 ]

This Court is of the opinion that the above points, though requires to be addressed, were not taken into account or adjudicated while issuing the impugned notice.

In the light of the afore, the impugned notices are set aside. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent Secretary, to reconsider the issue with specific reference to the limitation and the requirement to follow the rules as mandated by the two Division Bench judgments of this Court, referred to above. It is also clarified that the renewal of licence to the petitioner herein shall not be deferred, merely on account of the consideration of the matter afresh as above, by the Secretary.

The writ petition is disposed of, as above.

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