Vinu Koshy Abraham Vs Corporation of Cochin (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the mere absence of a formal demand notice for property tax during the pendency of litigation does not absolve a property owner’s obligation to pay the principal tax amount. The court, in an appeal filed by Vinu Koshy Abraham against the Corporation of Cochin, upheld the core liability for property tax on unauthorized constructions, even as it modified a previous order regarding interest payments.
The dispute stemmed from property tax demands by the Corporation of Cochin for the period from 2009-10 to 2021-22, related to areas designated as recreational space and car parking in an approved building plan, which the petitioner had allegedly converted and occupied. The building’s construction was completed in 2001, and an occupancy certificate was issued in the same year. Until 2009-10, the appellant had paid property tax for these areas. However, for subsequent years, the petitioner refused payment, citing ongoing litigation concerning the “unauthorised construction” and demolition orders.
Vinu Koshy Abraham’s primary contention before the Single Judge was that the Corporation had not issued any demand notice for these dues until September 12, 2022, which he argued violated Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, pertaining to the limitation period for recovery of dues. Section 539(1) of the Act stipulates a three-year limitation period for distraint, suit, or prosecution in respect of sums due to a Municipality.
