Allowed

Joy John.P, v. Muvattupuzha Municipality

Kerala HC10 Jun 2024WP(C)/9326/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging property tax demand notices that included basement car parking area in the plinth area. Court held Rule 3(3) excludes car parking areas from plinth area even when located in the basement and accessible to all, and quashed the demands to that extent.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P3 to P10 demand notices quashed to the extent they demand property tax on areas used for car parking.

Joy John.P, Vs Muvattupuzha Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9326 OF 2017

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1JOY JOHN.P,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.JOHN P.J., RESIDING AT POOVAN (H), MUVATTUPUZHA-686
661.

¶8

2ELSA JOY,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.JOY JOHN, RESIDING AT POOVAN (H), MUVATTUPUZHA
686661.

¶9

3JOHN JOY,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.JOY JOHN, RESIDING AT POOVAN (H),
MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.

¶10

4JOSEPH JOY,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.JOHN P.J., RESIDING AT POOVAN (H), MUVATTUPUZHA-686
661.

¶11

BY ADV PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-686 661.

¶14

2FINANCE STANDING COMMITTEE,
MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
PIN-686 661.

¶15

BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY
RAJAN T R

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 9326 OF 2017 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Exts.P3 to P6 demand notices issued for payment of property tax. It is the case of the petitioners that Exts.P3 to P6 demands are in respect of an area in the basement of the building used for the purpose of parking of cars. It is submitted that this area cannot be included in the plinth area for the purpose of determination of property tax as is evident from the reading of the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess anmd Surcharge) Rules, 2011 (the 2011 Rules).

¶20

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Municipality submits that the contention taken by the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is submitted that Rule 3(3) of the

¶21

2011 Rules refer to a single car porch attached to a residential house and does not cover a situation were a basement area of a building is converted for use as a car porch. It is submitted that this is clear from the reading of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules. It is submitted that in the present case, the basement area which is being used for parking of cars is covered on all four sides and there is no rationale for excluding such area from the plinth area for determining

¶22

WP(C) NO. 9326 OF 2017 3

¶23

the property tax.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Municipality, I am of the view that the petitioners are

¶26

entitled to succeed. Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules reads as follows:-

¶27

Property tax to be levied to each building-(1) The Secretary shall levy property tax as per section 233 and as per these rules for each building which has not been exempted from property tax as per section 235 of the Act.

¶28

(2) If more than one building is situated in the same property, if they are not constructed connecting each other, for the purpose of levying proeperty tax they shall be treated as separate buildings: Provided, latrine, firewood shed, cattle shed, cages for domestic animals or domestic birds, car shed, pump house situated in the same property as a building appurtenant there to or such other appurtenant building, even though separated from a building, shall not be treated as separate building and its plinth area shall not be included in the plinth area of the main building.

¶29

(3) If there is a car porch appurtenant to a building, its area shall not be included in the plinth area of the building and if there is a swimming pool, its area shall be included in the plinth area of the building.

¶30

(4) If different portions of the same building (including upper storeys) are owned by different persons, even though owned by single person, if separate building numbers are assigned to that portions of the building for proper reasons, property tax shall be levied to each one of those by considering each portion as separate buildings: Provided, if any portion of the building is set apart for common use, property tax of that portion shall be assessed by appending the plinth area of that portion in proportion with the plinth area of other portions.

¶31

(5) If different portions of a building are being used at the

¶32

WP(C) NO. 9326 OF 2017 4

¶33

same time, in accordance with different use as mentioned in the sub-rule (1) of rule 4, such portions of building shall be treated as separate building and building number shall be assigned to them and property tax shall be levied to each portion of building as per these rules.

¶34

(6) The Secretary shall, as per the direction of the Government, maintain a separate register recording the basic particulars regarding buildings exempted from property tax as per section 235 of the Act and reasons for their exemption from tax.

¶35

A reading of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 indicates that the area set apart for parking of cars shall not be included in the plinth area of the building for the purpose of assessment of property tax. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 deals with the inclusion of common areas for the purposes of determining the property tax payable on a building. A combined reading of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 and Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 does not lead to the conclusion that when the car parking area is common and is situated on the basement of a building, the same must be treated as common area for the determination of property tax. It is clear from a reading of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 that an area set apart for the parking of a car which is attached to the building cannot be inlcuded in the plinth area for the purpose of determination of property tax. Merely for the reason that different portions of the building belong to the petitioners individually and merely because the area used for parking of cars is an area which is accessible to all,

¶36

WP(C) NO. 9326 OF 2017 5

¶37

that does not lead to the conclusion that such area is to be treated as common area for the purpose for determination of property tax. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P3 to P6 and P7 to P10 demand notices will stand quashed to the extent they demand property tax on areas used for parking of cars in the building in question. It is made clear that the competent authority may assess the tax for the areas in the basement used for purposes other than parking of cars in terms of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3.

¶38

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶41

Sru

¶42

WP(C) NO. 9326 OF 2017 6

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9326/2017

¶44

PETITIONERs EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT
NO.BA(5669)/2014 DATED 21-11-2014.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO
THE 1ST PETITIONER BY REVENUE OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY DATED 27-6-2016.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO
THE 2ND PETITIONER BY REVENUE OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY DATED 27-6-2016.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO
THE 3RD PETITIONER BY REVENUE OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY DATED 27-6-2016.
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO
THE 4TH PETITIONER BY REVENUE OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY DATED 27-6-2016.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY TO THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 17-10-2016.
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY TO THE
2ND PETITIONER DATED 17-10-2016.
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY TO THE
3RD PETITIONER DATED 17-10-2016.
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY TO THE
4TH PETITIONER DATED 17-10-2016.
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION
PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE FEE REMITTED FOR THE
YEAR 2022-2023 FOR THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN

¶45

WP(C) NO. 9326 OF 2017 7

¶46

THE GROUND FLOOR NAMED 'POOVANS'.

¶47

Exhibit P13

¶48

TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FOR RUNNING THEIR RETAIL BUSINESS
NAMED 'POOVANS' IN THE GROUND FLOOR BY THE
MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY.

Joy John.P, v. Muvattupuzha Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy John.P, v. Muvattupuzha Municipality

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

N.Muhammed Haneefa and Another Vs the Managing Director and Another

Shobhana Vs Balakrishnan

Pudukkad Samagra Vikasana Samithi Vs the Union of India

Saiju a.v, Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Kumar.P., Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh.S Vs Ministry of Finance