Allowed

Santhom Convent, Mattilayam, Wayanad, v. the State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC8 Jan 2007WP(C)/649/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to assess tax on a building claimed for religious exemption under Section 3. Per a Division Bench precedent, the Government must decide exemption claims; accordingly, the assessment order was set aside and the Government directed to consider the claim.

What did the court decide?

Exs.P5, P6 and P7 are set aside. A direction to the Government to consider the claim for exemption and forward papers. Petitioner to produce judgment copy before Tahsildar and Government.

Santhom Convent, Mattilayam, Wayanad… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2007 / 18TH PAUSHA 1928

¶5

WP(C).No. 649 of 2007(B)

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER: ------------

¶8

SANTHOM CONVENT, MATTILAYAM, VELLAMUNDA P.O., WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MOTHER SUPERIOR SR.CLARET C.M.C.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, ASSESSING AUTHORITY, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD.

¶14

BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI JULIAN XAVIER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.R.RAMAN,J.

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.649 OF 2007

¶18

Dated this the 8th day of January, 2007

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioner seeks to challenge Exts.P5, P6

¶21

and P7. Ext.P5 is an order of assessment

¶22

passed under the Kerala Building Tax Act demanding an amount of Rs.8,400/- being the tax in respect of the building in Sy.No.677/1 of Thondernadu Village in Mananthavady Taluk. Ext.P7 is an order passed under the Luxury Tax Act. Ext.P6 is the demand pursuant to Ext.P5.

¶23

The contention of the petitioner is that the building stands exempted by virtue of Section 3 of the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, since the petitioner is using the building for religious purposes. Ext.P4 is an objection raised before

¶24

the Tahsildar, Mananthavady, wherein the petitioner has stated that the building is

¶25

-2-

¶26

W.P.(C).NO.649/2007

¶27

being used of religious purposes and also for imparting education to the poor pupil. Placing reliance on Ext.P10 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court it is contended that when

¶28

a claim for exemption arises for

¶29

consideration, the only competent authority to decide the same being the Government, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to pass an order impugned in this writ petition. By Ext.P10 judgment the Division Bench held that when a claim for exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerla Building Tax Act, 1975 is made and a question arises, the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to make an assessment. In that view of the matter, the assessment order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Government for consideration.

¶30

Following the said decision and in view

¶31

of the claim for exemption, there will be a

¶32

-3-

¶33

W.P.(C).NO.649/2007

¶34

direction to the Government to consider the claim for exemption made by the petitioner. The Tahsildar shall forward all the necessary papers to the Government on production of a copy of this judgment and thereafter the Government shall decide the matter. Exts.P5, P6 and P7 are set aside. The assessments will however relate anti, if the claim for exemption is refused.

¶35

Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Tahsildar as well as the Government for information and compliance.

P.R.RAMAN,

Judge.

kcv.

W.P.(C).NO.649/2007

-4-

Santhom Convent, Mattilayam, Wayanad, v. the State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhom Convent, Mattilayam, Wayanad, v. the State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Associ Vs Commercial Tax Officer

V.Ani Vs Regional Transport Officer

Moosa Haji Vs R.T.A. Palakkad

P.K.Abdul Raheem Vs K.S.E.B

M/S.Spices Trading Corporation Vs Assistant Commissioner

Sreejith Menon Vs Sales Tax Officer, Sales Tax Office