Allowed

E.M.Nazeer v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2017WP(C)/6772/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed writ petitions challenging enhanced property tax demand notices. The Court held the notices were illegal due to non-compliance with Rule 12 of the 2011 Rules and violations of natural justice, as no prior notice allowing objection was issued. It quashed the notices and directed fresh assessment after proper procedure.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed by quashing impugned demand notices and directing respondent Municipality to pass fresh orders after issuing necessary notices and hearing petitioners.

E.M.Nazeer Vs the State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/13TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 6772 of 2017 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

E.M.NAZEER, AGED 46 YEARS,S/O.MOIDEEN,ELLICKAL HOUSE,PATHADIPALAM, EDAPPALLY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.VINOD MS.JENCY SUSAN JOSE SRI.V.SRI NATH SRI.S.ARAVIND

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT

¶11

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

3. THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, KALAMASSERY,ERNAKULAM-682033.

¶14

4. THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, KALAMASSERY,ERNAKULAM-682033.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAL R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER,SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. NO. 6840/2017,AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 6772 of 2017 (V)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/21

¶22

EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/22

¶23

EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/23

¶24

EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/24

¶25

EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/25

¶26

EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/26

¶27

EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/27

¶28

EXT.P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/30

¶29

EXT.P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/31

¶30

EXT.P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/32

¶31

EXT.P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/35

¶32

EXT.P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/36

¶33

EXT.P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/37

¶34

EXT.P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/38

¶35

¶36

WP(C).No. 6772 of 2017 (V)

¶37

EXT.P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/39
EXT.P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/40
EXT.P17	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING NO.31/41.
EXT.P18	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE DOOR NOS.24/14,15,16,17 AND 20 DATED 06.08.2015
EXT.P19	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE DOOR NOS.24/18 DATED 06.08.2015
EXT.P20	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE DOOR NOS.24,25-1,25-2 AND 25-3 DATED 06.08.2015
EXT.P21	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE DOOR NOS.24/29,30,31,32,33,34 AND 35 DATED 06.08.2015
EXT.P 22	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE DOOR NOS.24/19 DATED 06.08.2015
EXT.P23	A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.144/15.LSGD DATED 27.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶39

EXHIBIT R3(A):- COPY OF THE RATE OF TAX FIXED BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.

¶40

EXHIBIT R3(B):- STATEMENT SHOWING THE BUILDING NUMBER, FLOOR AREA, OLD TAX AND REVISED TAX ETC OF THE PETITIONERS BUILDING.

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶45

- - - - W.P.(C) Nos.6772, 6840, 6842, 6847, 7538, 9732, 9798, 10509 and 10574 of 2017

¶46

¶47

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2017

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

The challenge in all these writ petitions is against the demand notices issued by the respondent Municipality, demanding property tax, at an enhanced rate from what was being collected from the petitioners in the immediate preceding years. The main contention in all these writ petitions is that, before issuing the demand notices, proposing the demand of enhanced rate of property tax on the buildings owned by the petitioners, the respondent Municipality did not comply with the statutory procedure contemplated in the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules, 2011, especially Rule 12, which requires the Municipality to issue a demand notice giving a clear 30 days period to the assessee for the purposes of satisfying the demand.

¶50

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality, in all these writ petitions.

¶51

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, and taking note of

¶52

W.P.(C) Nos.6772 of 2017 and connected cases : 2 :

¶53

the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality, on instructions, that it is a fact that the notices contemplated under Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules, in Form 5, had not been issued to the petitioners prior to issuing the demand notices to them, I find that, the impugned demand notices in all these writ petitions cannot be legally sustained, as they are vitiated through a non-compliance with the statutory procedure for demanding tax, as also for non-compliance with the rules of natural justice, in that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to raise their objections to the proposals served on them .

¶54

Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed by quashing the impugned demand notices and directing the respondent Municipality to pass fresh orders of assessment, after issuing the necessary notices to the petitioners, and hearing them in the matter.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶57

sm/

E.M.Nazeer v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.M.Nazeer v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koshy George Vs C.F.Robert

Kuttan Vs a.S.Anooja

R.Syamkumar Vs Mr.Muhammed Huwais

Pauly Francis M. Vs Anil P.B.

Mathews John Vs Raja Chandran

M/S.Rajan Jewellery and Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner