A municipality cannot reassess property tax for a period already assessed and paid.

The respondent Trust owns a marriage hall in Nagercoil. Its property-tax assessment was enhanced in 1988, leading to civil proceedings that ultimately resulted in a decision in the Trust’s favour in second appeal.

In 2018, the Municipality demanded ₹27,24,318 for the period from the first half of 1989–1990 to the second half of 2017–2018. The Trust challenged only a condition requiring a notarised undertaking to pay that amount; the condition was set aside, and the Trust paid the tax.

The Municipality then issued a further assessment notice dated 8 June 2018, demanding ₹54,18,490 for substantially the same period, without enclosing the working sheet. The Trust challenged that notice in W.P.(MD) No.16446 of 2018.

The Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the Municipality to follow the lawful procedure for any assessment relating to the subsequent period. The Municipality appealed.

1. Whether the Municipality could reassess tax for a period already covered by its earlier demand and paid by the Trust

2. Whether the availability of an alternate remedy precluded the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 where the impugned assessment was alleged to be unlawful on its face

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to intervene notwithstanding an alternate remedy where the impugned order is facially invalid or unlawful.

A municipality cannot issue a further assessment for a period already assessed and paid; any further revision must relate to a subsequent period and must be undertaken in accordance with law, including proper notice and an adequate opportunity to respond.

The judgment also recounts the earlier second appeal concerning the 1988 assessment, which addressed the procedural requirements under the Taxation and Finance Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and the method of calculating property tax, but those issues were not the basis of the present appeal’s decision.

The Court found that the earlier demand covered the period from the first half of 1989–1990 through the second half of 2017–2018 and had been paid. The subsequent notice nevertheless reassessed substantially that same period and increased the demand to ₹54,18,490 without providing the working sheet.

The Municipality could not reopen the assessment for that period through the impugned notice; any further assessment had to concern the period beginning with the first half of 2018–2019 and follow the prescribed procedure.

Because the challenge concerned an unlawful reassessment for an already assessed period—not merely a dispute over the correctness of an assessment—the Court held that the alternate-remedy objection did not bar writ jurisdiction.

It affirmed that any assessment for the subsequent period must be made in accordance with law; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.