JUDGMENT : Petitioners in all these writ petitions are owners of commercial buildings situated in Kottayam Municipality. They challenge the demand notices issued to them demanding property tax for their respective buildings. In some of the writ petitions, the Government Order dated 06-03-2019, directing collection of property tax on plinth area basis from 01-04-2016 is also challenged. 2. W.P.(C) No. 29844 of 2022 is treated as the leading case in this batch of writ petitions. Petitioner in the said writ petition is the owner of two buildings in Kottayam and had been paying property tax upto second half of 2021-22. However, in 2022, she was served with two demand notices for property tax for a period of five years i.e., from 2016-17 onwards. According to the petitioner, the demand notices have been issued without complying with the procedure prescribed by law for assessing property tax and that tax has been demanded with retrospective effect, with one hundred percent hike from the existing rate of tax. Petitioner also alleges that demand has been made without even giving credit to the tax already paid till the second half of 2021-22. Petitioner has also pleaded that the demand of property tax is barred by limitation and that tax has been assessed without following the requirements of law and hence the demands are unenforceable. 3. In W.P.(C) No.8590 of 2023 and a few other cases, apart from challenging the mode of assessment, it is also pleaded that the demand notices have not been issued in the form prescribed under the Rules and hence the demand notices are without authority of law. In some of the petitions, petitioners have sought for directions to conduct a fresh assessment of property tax for the buildings involved therein as per the provisions of the applicable statutory provisions. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10624 of 2023, has also challenged the Government Order dated 06-03-2019, permitting levy of property tax with effect from 01-04-2016. 4. In the counter affidavit dated 20-11-2023, the respondent Municipality has averred that the statute provides for an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the demand notice and that the petitioners ought to be relegated to pursue the said remedy. 4. In the counter affidavit dated 20-11-2023, the respondent Municipality has averred that the statute provides for an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the demand notice and that the petitioners ought to be relegated to pursue the said remedy. It is pleaded that the date of levy of revised property tax as per the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess, and Surcharge) Rules 2011, (for short ‘the Rules’) was extended from time to time by the State Government and finally by an Order dated 06-03-2019, the tax as per the Rules were directed to be collected from 01-04-2016, and that the demand notices have been issued in consonance with the said Government Order. The respondents asserted that the procedure prescribed for assessing property tax as per the Rules had been scrupulously complied with, before issuing the demand notices. It is also pleaded that demand notices do not fall within the category of distraint, suit, or prosecution as prescribed under section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994. Respondents have also pleaded that the issuance of demand notice is the starting point of limitation of three years to initiate proceedings for recovery of the said amount and therefore the contention on the basis of limitation is misconceived. 5. It is specifically pleaded that as per Decision No.1 of 22.02.2014 and 11 of 30.09.2011 of the Municipal Council, the area within Kottayam Municipality was divided into various zones and the roads were categorised based on their width and also that wide publicity of the same was given through newspapers and in the noticeboard of the Municipality and objections were called for from the general public as per Ext.R1(b). Thereafter, the Council finalised the basic rates of property tax per square metre of plinth area as per its decision No.1 dated 20-06-2014, which was published in the Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhumi dailies on 08-07-2014, and also in the noticeboards of the Municipality as per Ext.R1(c). According to the respondents, subsequently, a notice as mandated under rule 10 of the Rules was published calling upon the residents to submit a self-assessment property tax return and since petitioners failed to submit the return, the Municipality proceeded to assess the property tax for the buildings, following the procedure prescribed under rule 12(6) of the Rules. 6. According to the respondents, subsequently, a notice as mandated under rule 10 of the Rules was published calling upon the residents to submit a self-assessment property tax return and since petitioners failed to submit the return, the Municipality proceeded to assess the property tax for the buildings, following the procedure prescribed under rule 12(6) of the Rules. 6. In an additional affidavit filed on 17-03-2025, the two newspaper publications under rule 4(4) of the Rules were produced as Ext.R1(f). Apart from the above, it is pleaded that, in compliance with rule 10 and 12 of the Rules and to enable the owners to submit returns, door to door delivery of Form-2 were undertaken in a massive scale with staff deputed specifically for the said purpose as per the Order of the Secretary dated 09-07-2014, as evident, from Ext.R1(g). The communication dated 10-07-2014 sent for publication in the newspapers, is produced as Ext.R1(h). It is also asserted that every assessee was personally supplied with a copy of Form-2 and a massive field exercise was carried out, covering the entire Municipality updating the information required for the new scheme by completing Form-6 after inquiry. Respondents further affirmed that all the relevant entries have been updated and the property tax assessment register is being maintained in compliance with the mandate of section 233 of the Act. It is also pleaded that the property tax assessment register has been updated with the relevant data from Form-2 and Form-6 and the same is kept digitally, thus complying with the procedure prescribed under the provision. The respondents have pleaded that though the details of some of the publications are not available in the file, the procedure has been complied with. 7. Main arguments were advanced by late Sri. V. Rajendran, Sri. Saneesh Kumar K., Sri. V.B. Premachandran and others learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners, while Sri. Ajit Joy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and Smt. Deepa K.R., the learned Special Government Pleader addressed the Court on behalf of the respondents. 8. The issues that arise for consideration are: (i) What is the mode of assessment contemplated under section 233 of the Act as well as the Rules thereon? (ii) What are the requirements under the Act and the Rules that have been complied with and not complied with by Kottayam Municipality? 8. The issues that arise for consideration are: (i) What is the mode of assessment contemplated under section 233 of the Act as well as the Rules thereon? (ii) What are the requirements under the Act and the Rules that have been complied with and not complied with by Kottayam Municipality? (iii) Whether the non-compliances with the requirements would affect the levy and the consequential demand? (iv) Whether the power under section 282 of the Act can be exercised to levy property tax from 2016-17 onwards? (v) Whether the demand notices issued in the instant cases are barred by limitation? (vi) Whether the demand notices issued are invalid due to the failure to conform to Form-9 of rule 14 of the Rules? 9. Before dealing with the aforesaid issues, it is necessary to refer to the method of interpretation to be adopted while considering a taxing provision. A different approach is adopted while interpreting a taxing statute as held in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [ AIR 1961 SC 1047 ]. In a recent decision in Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Others v. Safari Retreats Private Limited and Others [ 2024 SCC Online SC 2691 ], the Supreme Court had reiterated the principles that govern the interpretation of a taxing statute. Those principles are extracted below: ”RULES REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUTES 25. ….......... The principles governing the interpretation of the taxation statutes can be summarised as follows: a. A taxing statute must be read as it is with no additions and no subtractions on the grounds of legislative intendment or otherwise; b. If the language of a taxing provision is plain, the consequence of giving effect to it may lead to some absurd result is not a factor to be considered when interpreting the provisions. It is for the legislature to step in and remove the absurdity; c. While dealing with a taxing provision, the principle of strict interpretation should be applied; d. If two interpretations of a statutory provision are possible, the Court ordinarily would interpret the provision in favour of a taxpayer and against the revenue; e. In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place; f. A taxing provision cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption; g. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed. The Court cannot imply anything which is not expressed. Moreover, the Court cannot import provisions in the statute to supply any deficiency; h. There is nothing unjust in the taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly; i. If literal interpretation is manifestly unjust, which produces a result not intended by the legislature, only in such a case can the Court modify the language; j. Equity and taxation are strangers. But if construction results in equity rather than injustice, such construction should be preferred; k. It is not a function of the Court in the fiscal arena to compel the Parliament to go further and do more; l. When a word used in a taxing statute is to be construed and has not been specifically defined, it should not be interpreted in accordance with its definition in another statute that does not deal with a cognate subject. It should be understood in its commercial sense. Unless defined in the statute itself, the words and expressions in a taxing statute have to be construed in the sense in which the persons dealing with them understand, that is, as per the trade understanding, commercial and technical practice and usage.” 10. With the above principles in mind, the issues mentioned earlier are considered as below:- Issue No.(i) What is the mode of assessment contemplated under section 233 of the Act as well as the Rules thereon? 11. Part IXA of the Constitution of India deals with Municipalities.Article 243X confers power upon the State Legislature to authorise a Municipality to levy, collect and appropriate taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure as may be specified by law. In accordance with the aforesaid power, the State has enacted section 233 of the Act, enabling every Council of a Municipality to levy property tax on every building situated within its area and not exempted under the Act. Till 2009, property tax was levied on the basis of annual value of a building, calculated on the basis of annual rent that can be received for the property. However, by Act 30 of 2009, the provision was substituted, providing for levy of property tax on the basis of plinth area of the building. 12. Till 2009, property tax was levied on the basis of annual value of a building, calculated on the basis of annual rent that can be received for the property. However, by Act 30 of 2009, the provision was substituted, providing for levy of property tax on the basis of plinth area of the building. 12. Section 233(2)(a) of the Act, as was enacted in 2009, contemplated the Government to fix, by notification, the minimum and maximum limits of rates of basic property tax that can be made applicable to one square metre of plinth area of the different categories of buildings and the date from which it shall come into force. Seven categories have been specified in the provision, of which the seventh is a general category and section 233(2)(b) enables the Government to fix sub categories of the above referred seven categories of buildings. 13. After the Government prescribes the minimum and maximum limits of rate of basic property tax, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, sub-section (3) of section 233 of the Act empowers the Council of the respective Municipality to fix the rates of basic property tax, subject to the limits fixed by State Government, as applicable to each category of building, within its area and such rates shall be the same for all buildings of the same category or its sub category. Sub-section (5) of section 233 of the Act stipulates that the Government must by notification, fix the date from which the basic property tax fixed by the Council shall come into force. After the basic property tax is fixed, various other steps are also required to be carried out to arrive at the annual property tax of a building. 14. At this juncture, it is appropriate to note the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality that, out of 48858 residential buildings and 20496 commercial buildings in Kottayam Municipality, only 24 cases have been filed, that too, all by owners of commercial buildings, which works out to only 0.001% of the total number of buildings. 15. Be that as it may, for easier comprehension, the different stages and steps in fixing the annual property tax of a building in a Municipality are narrated below: Stage 1. Fixing the basic property tax 1. 15. Be that as it may, for easier comprehension, the different stages and steps in fixing the annual property tax of a building in a Municipality are narrated below: Stage 1. Fixing the basic property tax 1. Government to fix the minimum and maximum limits of rates of basic property tax for one square metre of plinth area for the different categories of buildings and notify the date that it shall come into force. [See Sec.233(2)] 2. Municipality to inform the public through publication in the notice board and in a newspaper about the Council's intention to fix the basic property tax and invite objections. [See Sec.233(3) & Rule 4(2)]. 3. Fix the rates of basic property tax for each category or sub-category of buildings by a resolution of the Municipal Council. [See Sec.233(3) & Rule 4(1)] 4. The final rates of basic property tax fixed by the Council, including the date of commencement and period of operation shall be published on the noticeboard of the office of Municipality and in two newspapers. [See Sec.233(3) and Rule4(4)] 5. Government to notify the date on which the basic property tax fixed by the Council shall come into force. [See Sec.233(5)]. 6. Classify the Municipality into prime zones, secondary zones and tertiary zones and publish a notice inviting objections to such classification. [See Rule 7(1)]. 7. Finalise the zones after examining the objections and publish them on the notice board of the Municipality. [See Rule 7(3)] 8. Classify the roads and pathways within the Municipality as roads having a width of 5 m and more/less than 5 m, apart from pathways with a width of 1.5 m or less. [See Rule 8]. 9. Assess the basic property tax of a building by multiplying the basic rate of property tax with the plinth area of the building. [See Rule 5(2) and Sec.233(6)]. Stage 2. Assessment of Annual Property Tax. 1. A public notice in Form-1 shall be published by the Municipality containing the details helpful to the owners to assess the tax by themselves and a summary of the said notice shall be published in two newspapers, requesting the owners of the buildings to submit a tax return. [See Sec.233(10) and Rule10]. 2. The return shall be filed in Form 2, and a model of the form shall be published on the Municipality's noticeboard. [See Sec.233(11) and Rule 11]. 3. [See Sec.233(10) and Rule10]. 2. The return shall be filed in Form 2, and a model of the form shall be published on the Municipality's noticeboard. [See Sec.233(11) and Rule 11]. 3. The Secretary or authorised Officer shall conduct an inquiry/site inspection and assess the property tax by recording the details of the building in the property tax assessment register. [See Sec.233(13) and Rule 12]. 4. After the particulars of assessment are recorded in the property tax assessment register and in the property tax demand register, a demand notice shall be issued to each owner of the building. [See Sec.233(13) and Rule 14]. 5. While assessing the property tax, deductions/additions to the basic property tax shall be carried out on the basis of Schedules to Rule 6. [See Sec.233(7) and Rule 9 ]. 16. It is relevant to mention that there are no deductions or additions provided for buildings in the prime zone, while a deduction of 10% and 20% are provided for buildings in the secondary and tertiary zones respectively. Buildings on the sides of roads having a width of less than 1½ m are to be given 10% deduction and those with no public way facility with a 20% deduction. Buildings with low type roofs like those constructed with tiles, sheets, palm leaf or grass have to be given 10% deduction, while those with concrete roof will have no deductions. Buildings between 10 and 25 years of age ought to be given a deduction of 10% while those between 25 and 50 years are entitled to a deduction of 20% and buildings of 50 years and more with a deduction of 50%. Notwithstanding the above entitlement for deductions, the total of deductions shall not exceed 75% of the basic property tax. The above mode provided in the Schedules of rule 6 is to be adopted while fixing the annual property tax of a building in the Municipality. Issue No.(ii) What are the requirements under the Act and the Rules that have been complied with and not complied with by Kottayam Municipality? 17. While considering this issue, it has to be mentioned that the respondent Municipality has specifically pleaded that all procedures required under law have been strictly complied with. It is also pleaded that some of the publications could not be located in the file, though they have been complied with. 17. While considering this issue, it has to be mentioned that the respondent Municipality has specifically pleaded that all procedures required under law have been strictly complied with. It is also pleaded that some of the publications could not be located in the file, though they have been complied with. There is also no contra pleading from the writ petitioners, denying the assertions of the Municipality. 18. Be that as it may, Ext.R1(b) is the public notice dated03-03-2014, inviting objections regarding division of zones and categorization of roads. It is also pleaded that this was given wide publicity through newspapers and also through public notices published in the noticeboard of the Municipality as required under rule 4(2) and rule 7 of the Rules. Ext.R1(e) is the decision of the Steering Committee of the Municipality to hear the objectors on 29-05-2014 at the Council Hall and to issue hearing notice to the objectors. The final decision of the Council fixing the basic property tax was taken on 20-06-2014, which is seen published in two newspapers i.e. the Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhumi dailies dated 08.07.2014 as noticed from Ext.R1(f). Thus the requirement under rule 4(4) of the Rules has been complied with by the respondent Municipality. 19. First respondent has also specifically pleaded that the notice as mandated under rule 10 of the Rules was published calling upon the residents to submit a self assessment property tax returns and even a door to door delivery of the forms were undertaken in a massive scale, with staff deputed specifically for the said purpose, as evident from Ext.R1(g). The publication dated 10-07-2014 informing owners to submit returns, is produced as Ext.R1(h). It is also asserted that every assessee was personally supplied with a copy of Form-2 and a massive field exercise was carried out covering the entire Municipality, updating the information required for the new scheme by completing Form-6 after inquiry. However, the fact remains that there is nothing on record to show that the summary of the public notice in Form-1 was published in two newspapers having circulation in the Municipality. 20. There is also neither any pleading nor any material to show that site inspection was carried out by the respondent Municipality after Form-2 was submitted or in respect of those who had not submitted their returns. 20. There is also neither any pleading nor any material to show that site inspection was carried out by the respondent Municipality after Form-2 was submitted or in respect of those who had not submitted their returns. Since there is no averment in the counter affidavit that any inspection of the buildings was conducted, it has to be presumed that site inspection of buildings had not taken place. Issue No. (iii) Whether the non-compliances with the requirements would affect the levy and the consequential demand? 21. The two main non-compliances by the Municipality relate to the absence of public notice in Form-1 and publication of its summary in two newspapers. This requirement flows out of section 233(10) of the Act and rule 10 of the Rules. However, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, in the first affidavit filed by the Municipality, it has been specifically pleaded that they have published the public notice in compliance with rule 10 of the Rules. There is no denial of the said pleading. The publication required under section 233(10) of the Act read with rule 10 of the Rules is the public notice. Rule 10(2) stipulates that the summary of the public notice must be published in two newspapers. It has also been pleaded that the Municipality had decided on 09.07.2014 to distribute Form-2 to the owners through its own employees, as is seen from Ext.R1(g) and thereafter a publication dated 10.07.2014 was made informing the owners to submit returns by a particular date. Thus, the requirement of a public notice under Form-1, being in consonance with section 233(10) of the Act, is a mandatory requirement. Since the public notice in Form-1 has been pleaded to have been published in compliance with the Rules, in the absence of any denial of the said averment, it has to be presumed that such a publication in the noticeboard was in fact carried out. However, there is nothing to indicate that a summary of the said public notice was published in two newspapers, requesting the owners of the buildings to submit a tax return as per rule 10 of the Rules. In such circumstances, it needs to be considered whether the principles of substantial compliance can be adopted in respect of the respondent Municipality. 22. In Raza Buland Sugar Co. In such circumstances, it needs to be considered whether the principles of substantial compliance can be adopted in respect of the respondent Municipality. 22. In Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur [ AIR 1965 SC 895 ], the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question whether the resolution of the proposal to tax which was required to be published in a newspaper in Hindi was complied with by publishing it in a newspaper in Urdu. It was held that the provision for publication was mandatory but the manner of publication is directory and publication in Urdu was in substantial compliance with the requirement. 23. In the decision in Rai Vimal Krishna and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [ (2003) 6 SCC 401 ], the Supreme Court while dealing with issues that arose in relation to property tax levy under the Patna Municipal Corporations Act ,1951, considered whether the requirement to announce the assessment list by beat of drums and display of placards, which was the only mode prescribed by the statute, was mandatory or not. It was held that publication is mandatory and publication through newspapers is an accepted form of giving general notice. It was observed that publication and giving of notice to persons likely to be affected is a must. The court finally held that though the statute specifies only notice to be given by beat of drums and display of placards, publication in the newspapers will amount to sufficient notice to all. 24. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the decision in Sonik Industries, Rajkot v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Rajkot [ AIR 1986 SC 1518 ]. In the said decision, section 77 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, which provided that a notice informing the consent of the States to the Rules along with a copy of the Rules was required to be published in the newspaper. However, what was published in the newspaper was only the consent without the Rules. The principle of substantial compliance was adopted in the said case also. 25. Elaborating on the principle of substantial compliance, the Supreme Court had, in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Others [ (2011) 1 SCC 236 ], observed as follows: “32. The principle of substantial compliance was adopted in the said case also. 25. Elaborating on the principle of substantial compliance, the Supreme Court had, in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Others [ (2011) 1 SCC 236 ], observed as follows: “32. The doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be described as the "essence" or the "substance" of the requirements. Like the concept of "reasonableness", the acceptance or otherwise of a plea of "substantial compliance" depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the purpose and object to be achieved and the context of the prerequisites which are essential to achieve the object and purpose of the rule or the regulation. Such a defence cannot be pleaded if a clear statutory prerequisite which effectuates the object and the purpose of the statute has not been met. Certainly, it means that the Court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which the statute was enacted and not a mirror image type of strict compliance. Substantial compliance means "actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute" and the court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent of the statute and accomplish the reasonable objectives for which it was passed. 33. Fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance of an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non - compliance of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non - compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at compliance should be accepted. 34. The test for determining the applicability of the substantial compliance doctrine has been the subject of a myriad of cases and quite often, the critical question to be examined is whether the requirements relate to the "substance" or "essence" of the statute, if so, strict adherence to those requirements is a precondition to give effect to that doctrine. On the other hand, if the requirements are procedural or directory in that they are not of the "essence" of the thing to be done but are given with a view to the orderly conduct of business, they may be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict compliance. In other words, a mere attempted compliance may not be sufficient, but actual compliance of those factors which are considered as essential”. 26. The above observations and the decisions referred to, indicate that substantial compliance of the procedure would be sufficient in certain circumstances. Though there can be no quarrel with the proposition that procedure for imposing tax has to be strictly complied with, there can be instances of directory procedures whose strict compliance need not be insisted. Thus, it needs to be considered whether the said principle of substantial compliance can come to the aid of Kottayam Municipality in the instant cases. 27. The essence or substance of section 233(10) of the Act read with rule 10 of the Rules is the publication of public notice in Form-1 by the Municipality. public notice to be published in the noticeboard of the Municipality. The newspaper publication under rule 10(2) of the Rules is only the summary of the public notice and is not prescribed by section 233(10) of the Act, but only by the said Rule. public notice to be published in the noticeboard of the Municipality. The newspaper publication under rule 10(2) of the Rules is only the summary of the public notice and is not prescribed by section 233(10) of the Act, but only by the said Rule. Since publication of the notice has been specifically pleaded in the affidavit and not denied by the petitioners and considering the long lapse of time, it has to be held that the principle of substantial compliance does get attracted in the instant case. Except for vague averments, petitioners have not specifically pleaded that public notice was not published. Further, the minuscule fraction of owners (0.001%) alone have questioned the levy itself, which also indicates that the assessment was done to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority. Thus the Kottayam Municipality has to be held to have substantially complied with the requirement of rule 10 of the Rules and section 233(10) of the Act. Issue No. (iv) Whether the power under section 282 of the Act can be exercised to levy property tax from 2016-17 onwards? 28. Section 282 of the Act reads as follows; “ S.282. Power to assess in case of escape from assessment.— Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, where for any reason a person liable to pay any tax or fees leviable under this Chapter has escaped assessment in any half- year, the Secretary may at any time within four years from the date on which such person should have been assessed, serve on him a notice assessing to the tax or fee due and demanding payment thereof within fifteen days from the date of such service and thereupon the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, apply as if the assessment was made in the half-year to which the tax or fee relates.” 29. A reading of the above provision reveals that the power under section 282 of the Act is to assess a person who has escaped assessment in contradistinction to any amount of tax that has escaped assessment. In other words, if for some reason, a person was not assessed to tax, then the Municipality can, within a period of four years from the date on which such person should have been assessed to tax, assess such person. In other words, if for some reason, a person was not assessed to tax, then the Municipality can, within a period of four years from the date on which such person should have been assessed to tax, assess such person. The power under section 282 of the Act cannot be exercised to levy any additional quantum of tax that was omitted from the assessment earlier. The power can be exercised to proceed only against persons who were wholly omitted from assessment. Hence, the Municipality cannot assess, under section 282 of the Act, persons who have already been assessed to property tax. Issue No. (v) Whether the demand notices issued in the instant cases are barred by limitation? 30. By a notification dated 06.03.2019, Government has permitted the Municipalities to collect the property tax from 01.04.2016. Section 237 of the Act makes the property tax and the surcharge payable thereon, including the service cess when levied, to be a first charge upon the building, land and even upon the movable property belonging to the person liable to pay the tax, subject to the prior payment of land revenue due to the Government. The said provision thus creates a charge on the land as well as the income arising from the property. Creation of a statutory charge is intended to ensure priority in the matter of recovery. In the process of recovery, in the absence of any statutory charge, the liability becomes entangled in the rights and actions created and initiated by other persons as well. It is in such circumstances that the statutory tool of creating a first charge is adopted to provide a priority for payment when recovery modes are resorted to. Such a creation of a statutory charge is not a measure of limitation period but as mentioned above, only to identify who should be given priority in payment. 31. In the year 2023, an amendment was brought in and section 538B has been incorporated in the Act, making arrears of tax to be treated as arrears of public revenue recoverable by recourse to the Revenue Recovery Act. Till the amendment, recovery of arrears of tax could have been carried out only by virtue of the provisions in the Municipality Act. Till the amendment, recovery of arrears of tax could have been carried out only by virtue of the provisions in the Municipality Act. It is only to overcome the limited mode of recovery available under the statute that section 538B has been incorporated enabling the Municipality to resort to the Revenue Recovery Act also for recovery of arrears of tax due to it. Merely because the arrears of tax have been treated as arrears of public revenue, the same would not extend the period of limitation. However, for the purpose of recovery of any sum of money when charged on the land, Article 62 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of limitation of 12 years. 32. In this context, it has to be observed that section 539 of the Act stipulates that no distraint shall be made, no suit shall be instituted and no prosecution shall be commenced in respect of any sum due to a Municipality under this Act after the expiration of a period of three years from the date on which the distraint might first have been made, suit might first have been instituted or a prosecution might first have been commenced. The proviso to the said section carves out an exemption for recovery of the amount in respect of escaped assessment under section 282 of the Act. Thus, a period of limitation of three years is provided for under section 539 of the Act. The question that begs consideration of this Court is whether, despite the creation of charge on the property enabling the Municipality to recover the arrears of tax as arrears of public revenue, the limitation period would stand extended beyond three years. 33. As per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, when a period of limitation is provided under a special law, the said period of limitation shall be deemed to have been incorporated as a limitation period under the Limitation Act. 33. As per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, when a period of limitation is provided under a special law, the said period of limitation shall be deemed to have been incorporated as a limitation period under the Limitation Act. In the decision in Corporation of Cochin v. New India Maritime Agencies (P) Ltd. ( 2003 (3) KLT 209 ) , a Division Bench of this Court considered the implication of creation of a charge on a property, in relation to the erstwhile Municipal Corporations Act and held that, despite such a charge on the property, in view of the limitation prescribed under section 417 of that Act by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, recovery of any amount due to the Municipality will be governed by a period of three years. It was observed in the said decision as follows: “7……..While S.105 of the Act only says that a charge is created, S.417 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation for recovery of tax. Thus, according to us, the time for recovery of property tax is only three years…………..” 34. Thus despite the provisions of the Limitation Act stipulating a period of limitation of 12 years for recovery of the amounts due, when it is a charge on the property, the period of limitation stipulated in the special statute will have to be given preference and the same will prevail over the general period prescribed under the Limitation Act. As mentioned earlier, neither section 538B nor section 237 of the Act extends the period of limitation for recovery of amounts due to the Municipality. The creation of a charge on the property as well as the recovery of arrears of tax as an arrear of public revenue would not extend the limitation period prescribed under section 539 of the Act and the Municipalities are governed by the said provision. Viewed in the above perspective, the Municipality could have recovered only amounts as arrears for a period of three years. 35. Apart from the above, even the Government had understood section 539 of the Act as restraining recovery of arrears beyond three years, as is noted from the Government Order dated 06.03.2019. Though the interpretation of the Government cannot be regarded as the law of the land, in view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the view is legally tenable. 36. Though the interpretation of the Government cannot be regarded as the law of the land, in view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the view is legally tenable. 36. Thus, the recovery under the impugned demand notices cannot be initiated for arrears beyond three years from the date of demand. As the period of limitation is only a measure of restriction for recovering amounts due, all those owners who have paid the tax voluntarily or otherwise are not entitled for refund of the same. However, in respect of those persons who have not yet paid the amount, they need to pay only the arrears from a period that accrued three years prior to the demand notices issued to them. Issue No. (vi) Whether the demand notices issued are invalid due to the failure to conform to Form-9 of rule 14 of the Rules? 37. In W.P.(C) No.8590 of 2023, specific contentions have been raised and reliefs claimed, based on the form of demand notice. Ext.P5 to Ext.P7(b) are the demand notices issued without complying with the form prescribed in the Rules. Ext.P1 to Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.10624 of 2023 are also similar demand notices issued, contrary to the form prescribed, though no contention is seen to be raised on the basis of wrong form in the said case. Since in W.P.(C) No.8590 of 2023, the form of demand notice has been questioned, the said issue is dealt with below. 38. As per the provisions of the Act and the Rules, an assessment order is not required to be issued as in other taxing statutes. Section 233(13) of the Act stipulates that the Secretary shall assess the annual property tax and levy it by issuing a demand notice. Rule 12(1) of the Rules provides that the particulars regarding the property tax assessment shall be entered in the property tax assessment register appended to the Rules in Form-4. Thus the assessment of property tax is carried out by recording the details of assessment in the property tax assessment register. The rationale behind the absence of the requirement of an assessment order is because, once the basic property tax is fixed and other details are also available, what remains is only a calculation, by multiplying the plinth area with the basic property tax, coupled with the additions or deductions as the case may be. The rationale behind the absence of the requirement of an assessment order is because, once the basic property tax is fixed and other details are also available, what remains is only a calculation, by multiplying the plinth area with the basic property tax, coupled with the additions or deductions as the case may be. A reasoned order of assessment is not required to be given as per the Act or the Rules. 39. After the assessment is recorded in the property tax assessment register, the Municipality has to enter the necessary particulars for realising such tax in the property tax demand register in Form-8 appended to the Rules. The demand notice can be issued only after the details are recorded in the above said two registers. Thereafter, as per rule 14 of the Rules, and in consonance with section 233(13) of the Act, the demand notice has to be issued. Rule 14(1)(d) of the Rules stipulates that the demand notice shall be given in Form 9 appended to the Rules. The right of appeal commences on receipt of the demand notice, though the assessment will be the basis for the grievance. 40. Considering the peculiar feature of the Act and the Rules, especially that an assessment order is not required to be issued to an assessee, it is essential that Form-9 of the Rules relating to the demand notice be strictly complied with. A perusal of Form-9, will reveal that it provides sufficient and essential information about the quantum of tax assessed and other details. Without such information, the assessee will be in complete darkness about the quantum and other details of tax assessed. In comparison, the demand notices issued in the cases referred above are based on the property tax assessment as per the previous regime and do not contain any details. Moreover, some of the figures entered in the demand notices are also seen struck off and different figures have been entered therein. The demand notice provided in Form-9 is in stark contrast to the demand notices issued to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.8590 of 2023. 41. The decision in Inayat Ullah v. Custodian, Evacuee Property AIR 1958 SC 160 , relied upon by the Counsel for the Municipality has no application to the facts of the present cases. The demand notice provided in Form-9 is in stark contrast to the demand notices issued to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.8590 of 2023. 41. The decision in Inayat Ullah v. Custodian, Evacuee Property AIR 1958 SC 160 , relied upon by the Counsel for the Municipality has no application to the facts of the present cases. In that decision, the Court had in fact, compared the notices and found no difference between them in essential particulars, unlike in the present case. Since Form-9 appended to the Rules has to be strictly complied with, the demand notices issued contrary to the said form cannot constitute a valid demand under law. Conclusion 42. In the result: 1). The basic property tax fixation in respect of Kottayam Municipality needs no interference. 2). The owners of buildings can be made liable to pay the annual property tax demanded in the respective demand notices at the revised rates from a period three years prior to the date of demand onwards, after deducting the amount of tax, if any, paid already for those years. 3). No amount under the respective demand notices at the revised rates can be recovered for the periods from 2016 till three years prior to the date of demand and the owners of buildings in Kottayam Municipality cannot be put to any prejudice for non-payment of property tax for those periods. 4). The demand of property tax as per the respective demand notices in all these cases from 2016-17 till three years prior to the date of demand notices shall not be enforced, if not paid voluntarily. 5). The demand notices issued contrary to Form-9 of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess, and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 cannot constitute a valid demand under law. 6). Fresh demand notices in Form-9 have to be issued to those petitioners who have not been issued with such demand notices, in accordance with law. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.