Kerala High Court
Smt. Maneesha Kumar vs Corporation Of Cochin on 3 September, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
2024:KER:66572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 12TH BHADRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3369 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SMT. MANEESHA KUMAR,
AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.BINOY S.,
404, GOVIND APARTMENTS, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD,
KOCHI - 682 016.
BY ADVS.
ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
S.SREEDEV
RONY JOSE
CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
COCHIN - 682011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 SECRETARY,
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN - 682 011.
BY ADV ARUN ANTONY (SC)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:66572
WP(C) No.3369/2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved
by the fact that demands for property tax have been raised on
the petitioner for the period from 2005 to 2020 - 2021, as can
be seen from Ext.P4 notice issued to the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that property tax cannot
be demanded and collected from the petitioner for the period
from 2005 to 2020-2021. The challenge to Ext.P4 is on three
specific grounds. The first contention taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the demands in Ext.P4 or at
least a portion of it would be hit by limitation going by the
provisions contained in Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality
Act, 1994. The second contention taken by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the demand for property tax in Ext.P4
is on the basis of Annual Rental Value, and since the basis for
fixing property tax on the basis of Annual Rental Value has been
changed with effect from 2016 (to determination of property tax
on the basis of plinth area), the demand for property tax on the
basis of Annual Rental Value after 2016 cannot be sustained.
The learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of this
2024:KER:66572
Court in W.P(C)No.7398 of 2021 and connected case
(2024:KER:51622) in support of his contention. The third
contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the demand now raised is contrary to the directions
contained in Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal for Local Self
Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, where the
Tribunal had set aside the earlier assessment and had directed
the Secretary of the Corporation of Cochin to make a fresh
assessment. It is submitted that without making any fresh
assessment as directed in Ext.P2, after a period of nearly 14
years, Ext.P4 demand has been issued to the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Corporation of Cochin. The learned Standing Counsel submits
that no Form-2 application was submitted by the petitioner as
contemplated by the provisions of the Kerala Municipality
(Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011, and
therefore, the assessment of the property tax had to be
completed with available documents. However, it is not
seriously disputed that after 2016, property tax has to be
assessed on the basis of plinth area and not on the basis of
Annual Rental Value.
2024:KER:66572
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Corporation of Cochin , I am of the view that Ext.P4 is liable to
be set aside. Ext.P4, as can be seen, is a notice issued in
printed form demanding property tax for the period from 2005
to 2020-2021. It does not appear from Ext.P4 that the
directions issued by the Tribunal for Local Self Government
Institutions in Ext.P2 have been complied with before issuing
Ext.P4 demand. That apart, the question as to whether any
part of the demand in Ext.P4 is barred on account of limitation
is also a matter to be considered by the competent authority.
Further, after 2016, the property tax has to be assessed and
demanded on the basis of plinth area and not on the basis of
Annual Rental Value. There is nothing in Ext.P4 which would
indicate that the property tax has been assessed in the case of
the building of the petitioner on the basis of plinth area for the
period after 2016.
5. For all these reasons, Ext.P4 will stand set aside. The
matter will stand remanded to the 2nd respondent, who shall
consider all the above aspects and take a fresh decision in the
matter, also having due regard to the observations of this Court
2024:KER:66572
in the judgment in W.P(C)No.7398 of 2021 and connected case
and any other documents that may be placed by the petitioner.
Any amount remitted by the petitioner will be adjusted against
any future demands raised on the petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ats
2024:KER:66572
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3369/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
06.07.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX FOR
THE SECOND HALF PERIOD OF 2005-2006.
EXHIBIT P1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
02.03.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX FOR
THE PERIOD 2006-2007.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2007
IN REVISION PETITION NO.87/2007 ON THE
FILES OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
01.01.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
28.01.2021 WITH NO.7207 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT WITH TRANSLATION.
