IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TH WEDNESDAY, THE 28 DAY OF MAY 2025 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 31510 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

P.P.PAULOSE, AGED 82 YEARS, SON OF PURVATH, PALLIMALIL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, PIN – 686 691.

BY ADV.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT:

KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA MUNNAR ROAD, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686 666.

BY ADV.SHRI.JOICE GEORGE, SC, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a commercial building complex situated within the territorial limits of the respondent Municipality. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition is against Exts.P23 to 32 demand notices issued by the respondent Municipality demanding property tax in respect of the building owned by the petitioner.

2. The main reason on which, the challenge is raised by the petitioner is that, in respect of the rooms pertain to which impugned demand notices are issued, he had already submitted an application for exemption from paying property tax under Section 239 of the Kerala Municipality Act, as the said rooms were lying vacant during the said period. According to the petitioner, Ext.P23 to Ext.P32 demand notices were issued without taking into account the applications submitted by him under the said Rules, as evidenced by Exts.P1 to P20 acknowledgments. Apart from the above, the petitioner also raised a contention that, as the impugned demand notices contained the demands pertaining to the years from 2013-2014 and 2023-2024, the same are not legally sustainable, so far as it contain the demand of tax for the years more than three years preceding to the date of notices, as those are hit by the period of limitation under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel, I find merits in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the vacancy remission sought by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Kerala Municipality Act, it is to be noted that, even though the applications were submitted by the petitioner, which are evidenced by Exts.P1 to P20, same are not seen considered by the respondents while issuing Exts.P23 to P32 demand notices. Therefore, it requires reconsideration.

4. Apart from the above, there is substance in the contention raised by the petitioner, relying upon the period of limitation under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act. It is to be noted that, the issue regarding the limitation is decided by this Court in Gateway Hotels, Ernakulam v. Kochi Municipal Corporation [2025(3) KHC 245], wherein it was held that in view of the statutory limitation contemplated under Section 539 of the Act, it is not possible for the Municipality to demand arrears of property tax pertaining to the assessment years, beyond three years preceding to the date of notice. Therefore, I find that an interference is necessary in the demand notices issued in this regard.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P23 to P32, with a direction to the respondent to re-assess the property tax payable by the petitioner, taking into consideration the applications, if any, submitted by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. It is also held that, as far as the demand of the arrears is concerned, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Gateway Hotels (supra), the demand can only be issued for a period of three years prior to the date of Exts.P23 to P32 notices. Such a reassessment shall be made by the respondent, after issuing notices to the petitioner and giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also clarified