The Supreme Court invalidates the destination-based differential rate in Huejotzingo

The Plenary Court of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared invalid the differentiated rate based on the property’s destination for the collection of fees for the assignment of an official number in Huejotzingo, Puebla, as provided in the Revenue Law of that municipality for the 2026 Fiscal Year. The decision was issued in Unconstitutionality Action 7/2026, promoted by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), and was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on Friday, September 25, 2026, starting on page 381.

The judgment was issued by the Plenary in the session of April fourteen, two thousand twenty-six, with the ponencia of Minister Yasmín Esquivel Mossa. The lawsuit was received on January nineteen, two thousand twenty-six, signed by the President of the CNDH, María del Rosario Piedra Ibarra, and was admitted for processing on January twenty-one following; the instruction closed on March 20, 2026.

The ruling resolved thirteen precepts contained in the Revenue Laws of various municipalities in the State of Puebla for the 2026 Fiscal Year, published in the local Official Gazette on December eighteen, two thousand twenty-five.

What was challenged and what was resolved

The CNDH requested the invalidity of the normative portions that charge fees for the assignment of an official number under the expression “for each one” or “for each number,” due to alleged ambiguity, and those that establish differentiated rates according to the type of user or the destination of the property.

The Plenary declared the invalidity of Article 14, fraction II, of the Revenue Law of the Municipality of Huejotzingo, in the normative portion “in the case of the general public,” as well as subsection a) of that same fraction, which established “a) In the case of industry or commerce $661.50”.

The challenged fees were:

• General public, “for each one”: $250.50 (two hundred fifty pesos 50/100 M.N.).
• Industry or commerce: $661.50 (six hundred sixty-one pesos 50/100 M.N.).

Following the invalidity, the precept shall be read as follows: “ARTICLE 14. Fees for material works shall be incurred and paid by taxpayers according to the following situations and rates: (…) II. For the assignment of an official number (…), for each one. $250.50”.

The criterion on “for each one” and rates by destination

The Plenary recognized the validity of the expressions “for each one” and “for each number” in the Revenue Laws of Acajete, Ahuacatlán, Amozoc, Aquixtla, Atoyatempan, Caltepec, Camocuautla, Cuapiaxtla de Madero, Cuautlancingo, Jalpan, Los Reyes de Juárez, and Chiautzingo. In accordance with jurisprudence P. IV/2008, it applied the conforming interpretation and concluded that the expression refers to each act of assignment per property, not to each digit of the nomenclature.

Conversely, regarding Huejotzingo, it determined that tariff differentiation based on the property’s destination or the applicant’s status introduces elements unrelated to the cost of the service and violates the principles of tax proportionality and equity under Article 31, fraction IV, of the Federal Constitution. It specified that the disparity in fees between municipalities is not unconstitutional in itself, given the fiscal autonomy of Article 115, but it is when different amounts are charged for the same service within the same regulation.

Effects, exhortation, and voting

The declaration of invalidity will take effect upon notification of the resolutive points to the Congress of the State of Puebla, and must also be notified to the involved municipalities. The Plenary exhorted the Puebla Legislative Power to refrain from issuing future norms with the same flaw, in line with what was resolved in unconstitutionality action 5/2025.

The resolution was approved by a unanimous vote of nine, with Minister Esquivel Mossa separating from the exhortation, Minister Batres Guadarrama against the exhortation, and President Aguilar Ortiz specifying that these are fees and not taxes, in addition to announcing a concurring vote. It was ordered to be published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, the Official Gazette of the State of Puebla, and the Judicial Weekly of the Federation and its Gazette.

The criterion is relevant for Puebla’s municipalities and for taxpayers processing official numbers: it establishes that the charge must correspond to the actual cost of the service and not to the use or destination of the property, and confirms that the expression “for each one” is understood as for each assigned number, not for each digit.

Source: Official Gazette of the Federation, September 25, 2026, First Section (Judicial Power), p. 381 (official reference: Unconstitutionality Action 7/2026).