V.M. SANDEEP KRISHNA AND OTHERS Vs. SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioners and involve the same issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience to reference, the facts and exhibits is from Writ Petition No.14537 of 2016.

(2.) The petitioners conduct an Ayurveda Hospital in the name and style as "Krishnendu Ayurveda Hospital". The petitioners also own another building which houses a pharmacy, which is run in the name and style of "Sreerama Krishna Pharmacy". The issue involved in the instant writ petition pertains to the levy of property tax under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is the case of the petitioners that, prior to the assessment year 2013- 2014, the petitioners were called upon to pay only an amount of Rs. 1,65,240/- per year by way of property tax, whereas, for the assessment years 2013-2014 onwards, the petitioners were served with demand notices calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs. 1,99,764/- per year. The petitioners impugn the demand notices issued (Ext.P3 in WP(C) No.14537 of 2016 and Ext.P6 in WP(C) No.9931 of 2017), on the ground that the said demand notices were passed without completing an assessment in respect of the buildings owned by the petitioners, based on the new rules which were introduced under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, for the purposes of assessment of buildings to property tax. It is contended that, in the absence of an assessment order, there cannot be a demand notice and at any rate, there cannot be a demand of differential property tax at a higher rate, without having heard the petitioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Panchayat, wherein reference is made to the notification dated 25.02.2015 by which amendments were effected to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, in particular, it is pointed out that the rate of tax applicable to Ayurvedic Resorts, was re-fixed in a higher amount than what was earlier applicable to the said buildings. The differential demand raised on the petitioners is sought to be justified on the basis of the amendments effected to the Panchayat Raj Act.