A.P.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI Vs. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions are persons, who own buildings within the territorial limits of the Palakkad Municipality. The common case of the petitioners is that, while prior to 2009, the basis of payment of property tax, in respect of the buildings owned by them within the territorial limits of the Municipality in question, was the annual rental value that was computed in respect of the buildings in question, with effect from 2013, there was a change in the basis of levy of property tax and the plinth area of the building was the new criteria fixed for levying property tax. It would appear that, although there was an amendment to Section 233 of the Municipalities Act with effect from 07.10.2009, the Rules for assessment and collection of property tax were promulgated by the State Government only with effect from 14.01.2011. The implementation of the charging section therefore became possible only with effect from 14.01.2011, the date of promulgation of the Rules under the Act. In the instant writ petitions, the demand of property tax for the assessment years between 2013-2014 and 2017-18 is called in question. It is the case of the petitioners that, while the rate of property tax was fixed by the respondent Municipality as early as on 03.02.2012 through a notice that was issued in terms of Rule 4 (4) of the 2011 Rules, the procedure that was contemplated under Rule 8 was not followed by the respondent Municipality and consequently, the procedure under Rule 10, of calling for the details from the assessees in the formats mentioned in the said Rule, were also not complied with by the respondent Municipality. The petitioners were served with demand notices, as also arrear demand notices, which have been impugned in the writ petitions, inter alia, on the ground that it was not open to the respondent Municipality to demand property tax as also arrears of property tax without first complying with the mandatory procedure stipulated under Rules 8 and 10 of the 2011 Rules.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Municipality, wherein various notices issued by the Municipality as contemplated under Rules 4, 7 and 8 of the 2011 Rules, as also the publication of Form-I and Form-II have been detailed. The said notices have been produced as Exts.R1(a) to R1 (e) along with the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Municipality. It is the stand of the Municipality that inasmuch as the basic rate of property tax was fixed by the Municipality as early as on 03.02.2012, any defects in the procedure followed by them thereafter, could not deprive them of the power to levy tax in accordance with the rates already fixed under Rule 4(4) of the 2011 Rules.