Allowed

The Director v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC19 Sept 2012WP(C)/7967/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala wrote a petition challenging the denial of tax exemption for a convent where nuns work in a nearby hospital. The Court held that nuns’ employment does not negate the religious nature of the convent and quashed the impugned orders, directing that exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act be granted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders (Exts.P2 and P4) quashed; exemption from building tax directed to be granted.

The Director Vs the Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/28TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 7967 of 2009 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE DIRECTOR, SAPIENTIA (S.H.CONVENT), MUTHALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.VIJAYAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA TALUK,

¶11

THODUPUZHA.

¶12

2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶13

(REVENUE SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT

¶14

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.SHAIJ RAJ T.K.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 7967 of 2009 (B)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1	: PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 25.09.2001.
EXT.P2	: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.03.2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	: PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.03.2008 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2009 BY SMT.K.R.PRABHAVATHI, DEPUTY SECRETARY.

¶21

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.7967 of 2009

¶26

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioner is the Director of a Convent. They were issued an assessment order under the Kerala Building Tax Act on the ground that the Convent is not used for religious purposes. Thereupon, they claimed exemption from tax as provided under Section 3(1) (b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. That claim of the petitioner was referred to the Government and after hearing the parties was rejected by Ext.P4 order. It is challenging the assessment and the denial of exemption as per Exts.P2 and P4 orders, this writ petition is filed.

¶29

Contentions raised in the pleadings are that the convent being a place used for religious purposes, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption from the levy of building tax. However, referring to Ext.P4 order, the learned Government Pleader contended that the claim of exemption has been rightly rejected.

¶30

I have considered the contentions raised.

¶31

W.P.(C).No.7967/2009

¶32

: 2 :

¶33

Reading of Ext.P4 order shows that according to the second respondent, the nuns staying in the convent are working in a nearby hospital and therefore, the convent is not entitled to get the benefit of exemption for the reason that the place is not used for any religious purposes.

¶34

Section 3 of the Building Tax Act, provides for exemption from the levy of tax under the Act. Section 3(1)(b) provides that buildings used principally for religious purposes are eligible for exemption. In the judgment in Mother Superior

¶35

Adoration Convent v. Government of Kerala and Another

¶36

(2008(1) KHC 345), a Division Bench of this Court has already held that buildings of Convents are generally used for religious purposes and therefore, will qualify for exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. However, in this case, the nuns are working in a nearby hospital and therefore the question is whether the employment of the nuns in a hospital will render the Convent ineligible to be exempted from the levy of building tax on the ground that it is not used for religious purposes.

¶37

W.P.(C).No.7967/2009

¶38

: 3 :

¶39

Having considered this issue, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Nuns are persons, who have taken vows committing their life to their religion. Even if such nuns are working in a hospital or elsewhere, their status as nuns is not lost. The place of residence of such nuns will continue to be a convent and the activities of such nuns will also continue to be religious. If that be so, the convent where such nuns reside are places which are principally used for religious purposes and such places continue to be qualified for exemption

¶40

as provided under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Therefore, the conclusion in Ext.P4 that the Convent in question is not eligible for exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act is unsustainable.

¶41

For the aforesaid reasons, I quash Exts.P2 and P4 and direct that exemption be granted to the Convent of the petitioner from the levy of building tax as provided under the Kerala Building Tax Act.

¶42

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶43

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶44

The Director v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director v. the Tahsildar

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

C.Haridas Vs Special Deputy Tahazildar

C.v.Vasudevan Vs the Tahsildar

Lahu Ananda Dudhe Vs the Intelligence Officer

P.Rameshan Vs State of Kerala & Another

Kunhimoidu Haji Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode

M/S.J.J.Industries Vs the Intelligence Officer, Squad No.Ii