Kerala HC: Non-Compliance with Rule 4(4) of Municipality Act Rules Invalidates Thrissur Corp's Property Tax Demands; Recovery Limited to 3 Years - 2025-05-30

Kerala High Court Quashes Thrissur Corporation 's Property Tax Demands Citing Procedural Lapses

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed a batch of demand notices for property tax issued by the Thrissur Corporation , citing critical non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and its associated Rules. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the failure to properly publish the final rates of basic property tax rendered the subsequent demands invalid. The court also clarified that recovery of any tax, even if validly demanded, would be limited to three years.

Background of the Dispute

The judgment addressed several writ petitions filed by building owners, including Alexander P.Kurian (W.P.(C) No.12364 of 2024), challenging demand notices for property tax. The petitioners, who had been paying taxes as per previous demands, were served with new notices demanding substantial arrears, in some cases retrospectively from 2016-17, along with penalties, based on revised tax rates.

Petitioners' Contentions

The primary arguments raised by the petitioners were:

1. No prior demand or notice for the alleged arrears was ever served.

2. The new, enhanced property tax rates were published only in 2023, making retrospective demand from 2016-17 unauthorized.

3. The retrospective application of enhanced rates violated the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules.

Thrissur Corporation 's and State Government's Defence

The Thrissur Corporation and the State Government countered these arguments, stating: 1. The Government had fixed minimum and maximum property tax rates in 2011, followed by the Municipality fixing specific rates and dividing its limits into zones by 2013. 2. A Government Order in 2019 (G.O.(Rt) No.540/2019/LSGD) set the effective date for the revised tax levy as 01.04.2016, to accommodate procedural delays in data collection across municipalities. 3. The Corporation claimed compliance with procedural formalities, including public notices and data uploading into 'Sanjaya Software'. 4. They invoked Section 282 of the Act, allowing assessment of tax that had "escaped assessment" within four years. 5. The Government argued this was not a retrospective fixation but a delayed demand for a prospectively fixed tax (from 2013, later made effective from 2016).

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas meticulously examined the issues, guided by the principle of strict interpretation of taxing statutes.

Procedural Lapses: The Fatal Flaw in Tax Fixation

The Court identified critical non-compliances by the Thrissur Corporation . The most significant was the failure to publish the final rates of basic property tax, fixed by a council resolution dated 13.11.2013, in two newspapers as mandated by Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules, 2011, read with Section 233 (10) of the Act.

The judgment emphasized: > "As per section 522 of the Act, every notification, unless otherwise provided, must be published in the Gazette... The publication in the noticeboard of the Municipality and in two newspapers having circulation in the area as provided in rule 4(4) of the Rules can be regarded as another manner specified by the Government for publication. Hence, such a publication is a mandatory requirement... The Thrissur Corporation has thus failed to comply with the publication under rule 4(4) of the Rules."

While another non-compliance – failure to publish a summary of the public notice in Form-1 in two newspapers (Rule 10(2)) – was noted, the Court suggested substantial compliance might apply. However, this became irrelevant due to the "fatal" flaw in Rule 4(4) compliance. > "However, since rule 4(4) has not been complied with by the Thrissur Corporation , the subsequent compliance of rule 10 serves no purpose and the assessment of property tax and consequential demand cannot sustain under law."

The Court relied on its previous decision in * Subaidabi K.M. v. State of Kerala [ 2024 (2) KLT 450 ]*, which had interfered with tax fixation in Perinthalmanna Municipality for similar non-compliance.

Scope of 'Escaped Assessment' under Section 282

The Court clarified that ** Section 282 of the Act**, which allows the Secretary to assess a person who "escaped assessment," cannot be used to levy additional tax on someone already assessed. > "A reading of the above provision reveals that the power under section 282 of the Act is to assess a person who has escaped assessment in contradistinction to any amount of tax that has escaped assessment... The power can be exercised to proceed against persons who were wholly omitted from assessment and not a person who was already subjected to an assesment." Thus, the Municipality could not use Section 282 to demand enhanced tax from 2016-17 from those already paying property tax.

Limitation Period for Tax Recovery

A crucial aspect of the judgment was the determination of the limitation period for recovering property tax arrears. The Court held that ** Section 539 of the Act**, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for initiating recovery actions, prevails. > "As per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, when a period of limitation is provided under a special law, the said period of limitation shall be deemed to have been incorporated as a limitation period under the Limitation Act."

The Court referenced the Division Bench decision in Corporation of Cochin v. New India Maritime Agencies (P) Ltd. ( 2003 (3) KLT 209 ) , which held that despite a statutory charge on property, the specific limitation in the municipal statute (three years) would apply. The judgment stated: > "The creation of a charge on the property as well as the recovery of arrears of tax as an arrear of public revenue would not extend the limitation period prescribed under section 539 of the Act and the Municipalities are governed by the said provision. Viewed in the above perspective, the Municipality could have recovered only amounts as arrears for a period of three years." Therefore, even if the demands were valid, recovery could only be for three years preceding the demand.

Constitutional Validity of Rules Upheld

The Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Rules (raised in W.P.(C) No.35919 of 2024), which argued that only the State Legislature can make laws for levying tax under Article 243X of the Constitution. The Court found this contention "without any merit and legally untenable," reasoning that Article 243X empowers the Legislature to authorize a Municipality to levy taxes "in accordance with such procedure... as may be specified by law." Since the Legislature (through Section 233 of the Act) empowered the Government to make Rules prescribing the procedure, such rules are not unconstitutional.

Final Order and Implications

In light of these findings, the High Court:

1. Declared that the basic property tax fixation by Thrissur Corporation was not carried out in accordance with the law due to non-compliance with Rule 4(4).

2. Quashed all impugned demand notices for property tax at the revised rates.

3. Directed the Thrissur Corporation to carry out the procedure afresh from the stage of Rule 4(4) compliance without delay.

4. Stipulated that after completing the procedure correctly, fresh demand notices can be issued, but only for property tax at revised rates for the period of three years prior to the date of such new demand.

This judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural mandates in tax E-assessment and collection by municipal authorities and provides significant relief to property owners faced with retrospective and potentially time-barred demands.