Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J
Ascend Telecom Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 200 OF 2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to property tax arrears based on statutory limitation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. limitation period for tax recovery under the kerala municipality act. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. partial setting aside of demand notice based on limitation compliance. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.P.Sathisan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Standing Counsel for Thiruvananthapuram corporation.
2. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the demand of property tax under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), as evidenced by Ext.P4 demand notice, essentially on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Ext.P4 has been issued with reference to 2013-14 onwards. According to the counsel, the afore demand notice, with respect to the periods which are hit by the provisions of Section 539 of the Act, only requires to be set aside.
3. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand, even with reference to the provisions of Section 539 of the Act, submits that the demand notice with respect to certain years could be sustained.
4. I have considered the rival contentions. Under provisions of Section 539, it has been categorically provided that a demand/steps for recovery with respect to realization of property tax is required to be made within a period of three years. In the case at hand, on a perusal of Ext.P4, it is clear that the respondent corporation is seeking to demand property tax even with respect to periods which are beyond the period of three years as prescribed under the Statute.
4. To that extent, I am of the opinion that Ext.P4 requires to be set aside.
5. In such circumstances, Ext.P4 to the extent it covers the periods which are hit by the limitation under Section 539 would stand set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also raise other contentions with respect to the exigibility to tax as regards the mobile towers. Those contentions are left open for consideration in an appropriate stage.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
