Remanded

Al.Ameen Educationl Trust v. Tahsildar

Kerala HC25 Oct 2013WP(C)/11036/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the exemption claim by the petitioner regarding a building used as a girls' hostel, citing rent collection. It distinguished a precedent allowing exemption despite rent and remanded the matter to the Government for a fresh decision within three months, suspending tax realization.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext. P1 order and remitted matter to the third respondent to pass fresh orders within three months. Coercive steps for tax realization held in abeyance.

Al.Ameen Educationl Trust Vs Tahsildar — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/3RD KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 11036 of 2010 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

AL-AMEEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, EDATHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.M. ABDUL RAHMAN.I.P.S

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.) SMT.P.SHYNI SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW SRI.ABDUL MAJEED SRI.S.GIRISH SRI.N.NIRUP KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMNET OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KARIYACHAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

DCS

¶16

WP(C).No. 11036 of 2010 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 622/10/REV. DEPT. DATED 9.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7(3) OF THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT 1975

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. C7-231/09 DATED 03.01.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C7-231/09 DATED 12.03.2010 ALONG WITH FORM VI NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. NIL DATED 28.01.2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶24

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. C7-231/09 DATED 04.03.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶25

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE EXPLANATION NO NIL DATED 12.03.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶26

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C7-231/09 DATED 17.03.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER

¶27

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2009 OF THIS HOUNOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 15984 OF 2009 (P)

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶33

-------------------------------

¶34

W.P.(C) No.11036 of 2010

¶35

------------------------------------- Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2013

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Exemption sought under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 stands rejected by Ext. P1 order. The contention of the petitioner is that the building is used principally for educational purpose and hence exempted from the provisions of the Act. The following factors are significant:-

¶38

i) The building is used as a hostel for the girls students of the college of the petitioner.

¶39

ii) The hostel building also belongs to the petitioner and lies adjacent to the college property.

¶40

iii) Only the students studying in the college have been permitted to occupy the rooms in the hostel building.

¶41

The only ground on which exemption is disallowed in Ext. P1 order is that rent was collected from the inmates of the hostel. That by itself is not a reason enough to deny exemption as held in Unity Hospital (P.) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2011(1) KLT 236 (F.B.)] . The hostel facility is intrinsically linked to the education imparted in the college even though one need not be a hostelate to study in the college. The fact that the hostel building also belongs to the

¶42

W.P.(C) No.11036 of 2010 2

¶43

petitioner which runs the college and that it lies in the property adjacent goes a long way to advance the case of the petitioner.

¶44

I feel that the matter needs a re-look at the hands of the Government for which I remit the matter to the third respondent. Ext. P1 order is quashed and the third respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after notice to the petitioner within a period of three months. The coercive steps for realisation of the tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act from the petitioner shall be put on hold in the meanwhile.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶47

DCS

Al.Ameen Educationl Trust v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Al.Ameen Educationl Trust v. 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

Tennsi Joseph Vs Nabeera Beegum

Mahendra Kumar M. Vs Ramesh

Hassan Vs the Debt Recovery Tribunal

Beebeerakath Nafeesa Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Saraswathy Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Mahesh.v. Vs the Calicut Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.