The TSJCV's resolution overturns the initial ruling and confirms the municipal administration's actions regarding the property tax application. The court determined that the modification of the Tax Ordinance does not inherently require specific justification for the tax rate increase, provided it remains within legal limits and is supported by a technical report.
The court also stated that transferring the judgment of the IBI increase to the municipal budget scope, through an indirect challenge of the Tax Ordinance, constitutes a deviation from the scope of indirect challenges. Consequently, it upheld the appeal, overturned the appealed sentence, and dismissed the administrative litigation filed.
For the municipal government, this judicial decision confirms that the City Council acted lawfully and that the 2025 property tax was applied in accordance with the ordinance approved by the council and supported by technical reports. The initial ruling had annulled the ordinance modification, creating uncertainty among taxpayers.
The governing team expressed regret over the situation created in recent months, believing that opposition messages contributed to raising expectations of IBI refunds among citizens. The government recalled that, following the initial ruling, calls were publicly made for taxpayers to file refund claims, an action they described as "hasty" and driven by "partisan interests".
With the TSJCV's favorable resolution, the government deems it necessary to correct the "interested confusion" generated by the opposition. They maintain that the IBI modification was necessary due to the municipality's economic needs and was approved and applied according to the correct legal procedure.
"Our obligation is to govern responsibly, defend Sueca's interests, and comply with the law," stated the governing team, asserting that the tax modification was made "to continue providing the services demanded by citizens after inheriting a city council in deficit".
