The court ruled that tax recovery outside statutory limits was unlawful, modifying the refund order accordingly.

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J This appeal has been filed by the Thrissur Muncipal Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short), assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 07.02.2024; however, only to the extent to which they have been directed to refund certain sums to the 1^st respondent – Cochin Devaswom board (‘Board’ for short) - which has been found to have been collected illegally as tax from them.

2. The essential facts involved in this case are not in dispute.

That the Corporation issued Ext.P7 demand notice to the Board, directing them to remit property tax for the assessment years 1994-95 till 2015-16, determining the same to be a sum of Rs.4,50,371/-, is admitted. Further, the factum of the Board having remitted the said amount, as evident from Ext.P8, is also without dispute, though it is asserted before us that this was done under protest.

3. It transpires that the Corporation took the stand that the amount shown in Ext.P7 is a figure that was calculated under a One Time Settlement Scheme propounded by the Government of Kerala; and that the said sum ought to have been paid on or before 31.03.2016, but, which the Board remitted only on 06.05.2016. On this basis, the Corporation issued Ext.P9 order, directing the Board to pay a further amount of Rs.6,99,160/- towards property tax for the period until 2015-16, as also the penalty for the previous years. The Board responded to this, through Ext.P10, where they affirmed that they have made the payment as per Ext.P8 on their own, solely to maintain good relationship with the Corporation and to ensure that their officers are not put to any trouble; however, praying that the said figure be adjusted towards the property tax until 2015-16, cancelling the demand for qua the previous years.

4. The Corporation did not accede to this, which finally led the Board to approach this Court through the writ petition.

5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, finding that the demand made by the Corporation, vide Ext.P7, is barred by time under the provisions of Section 282 of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994 (‘Act’ for short); thus directing the Corporation to return the amount collected to the Board.

6. The Corporation is in appeal against the afore directions.

7. Sri.Santhosh Poduval - learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, submits that his client did not coerced the Board to make payment as reflected in Ext.P7, but that they did so on their own; and hence that the said amount could never have been directed to be refunded. He argued that, even though the rigour of limitation would incapacitate recovery, the demand itself is not rendered illegal. He argued that, when the Board made the payment on their own without any demur, the impugned direction, to refund the same stands inequitable.

8. Smt.Anjali Menon, appearing on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, argued that when the demand itself is illegal as per Section 282 of the Act, recovery of the same, either done voluntarily or through distress, also becomes unlawful and impermissible. She argued that, therefore, the findings of the learned Single Judge are irreproachable.

9. We notice from the afore narrative of facts and the pleadings on record that, the real controversy is whether the amounts paid by the Corporation, pursuant to Ext.P7 demand and reflected in Ext.P8, can be directed to be refunded to them by the Corporation.

10. The facts noticed are very peculiar. The Corporation issued Ext.P7 demand for a period which was obviously hit by the rigour of limitation, under Section 282 of the Act. If the Board had not acceded to this