The writ petitioner challenged high property tax demand notices issued by the Grama Panchayat for a commercial building. The Court held that based on a recent Government Order capping enhancement at 100%, the petition was disposed of, setting aside the notices.
Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices issued by the 2nd respondent are set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 4330 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:
PAULOSE FRANCIS, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.VARKEY PAULOSE, MANJALY HOUSE, ANNANADA P.O., PIN - 680 309.
BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR G.REMADEVI(K/2698/1999) HARIMA HARIHARAN(K/000967/2018) RAJATH R NATH(K/1695/2019) DHEERAJ SASIDHARAN(K/001048/2023) SREE HARIDEV(K/704/2024)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2 KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KORATTY P.O., PIN - 680 308. BY ADVS. SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SRI.ANOOP BHASKAR SMT.K.R.MONISHA SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE R1 – SRI.RAJEEV GEROGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) No.4330 of 2015
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2024
The petitioner is the owner in possession of a commercial building in
the 2nd respondent - Grama Panchayat. The grievance voiced in the writ petition is the issuance of demand notice by the 2nd respondent demanding property/building tax under Rule 14(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Building Tax and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules, 2011'). It is contended by the petitioner that the issuance of Exts.P1 and P2 notices is in violation of rule 9(4D) of the Rules, 2011. It is further stated that rule 9(4D) does not empower the 2nd respondent to demand the building tax. The said rule specifies that while calculating the new building tax, it shall not exceed more than 150% of the existing tax in the case of commercial buildings. Whereas on comparison of Exts.P1 to P3, it appears that the demand raised there by is above 3000% above the existing rate. The petitioner produced Ext.P4 interim order in WP(C) No.29505 of 2014, whereby in a similarly situated case, this Court had stayed the recovery of any amount from the respective persons.
3
WP(C) No.4330 of 2015
Court on the strength of the Government Order dated 27.04.2015. By that Government Order it is clarified by the Government that when the property tax is assessed on the basis of plinth area, the increase shall not be more than 100% of the pre-existing rate. It is further stated, the condition with regard to enhancement in respect of properties having an extent of 2000 square feet has also been extended to commercial buildings. In the light of the said factual circumstances, the grievance voiced in those writ petitions would have redressed and those writ petitions were closed.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices issued by the 2nd respondent. Needless to say, this will
not stand in the way of the authorities to reassess the building in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 2011.
sd/- P.M.MANOJ JUDGE
das
4
WP(C) No.4330 of 2015
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4330/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. 1739 DATED 10/12/2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P1(A): THE TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. 1740 DATED 10/12/2014 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P2(B): TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF TAX FOR THE BUILDING NO. 3/533 & 3/535 FOR THE YEAR 2013 - 2014.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.NO. 29505/2014.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the issuance of demand notices under Rule 14(1) violating Rule 9(4D) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Building Tax and Surcharge) Rules, 2011.
Paulose Francis
State of Kerala
Koratty Grama Panchayat
P.M.Manoj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
