Allowed

Fathima Public School v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Apr 2013WP(C)/4028/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that since the substitution of Section 235 of the Kerala Municipality Act by Act 30 of 2009 was prospective, the previous exemption under Section 235(d) applied only up to October 7, 2009. Consequently, the Court quashed tax demands for the pre-amendment period and directed the municipality to issue fresh demands.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of by quashing the demand notices (Exs. P1, P2, P4, P5) issued for tax periods prior to October 7, 2009, and directing the Municipality to issue fresh demands in accordance wit

Fathima Public School Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 4028 of 2010 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE FATHIMA PUBLIC SCHOOL, RPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER H.SHAJAHAN, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. HAMEEDUKUTTY, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM DIST. KERALA STATE (RESIDING AT KANNANKARA HOUSE VALAKODE P.O., PUNALUR)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN SRI.N.NIRUP KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, RPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-965001.

¶11

2. THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PUNALUR KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA K.A.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2013, ALONG WITH WP(C) No. 14368/11, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WPC NO.4028/10

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.14633 DT 4.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER SCHOOL.

¶18

EXT.P2: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THEDEMAND NOTICE NO.14634 DT 4.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER SCHOOL.

¶19

EXT.P3: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. NIL DT 10.8.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER SCHOOL.

¶20

EXT.P4: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 29.4.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE PETITIONER SCHOOL.

¶21

EXT.P5: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.(MS) 70/2005 DT 11.3.2005 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF (B) DEPARTMENT UNDER THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P6: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.R-1 630/2009 DT 13.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P7: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C.B.S.E/AFF/SL01192/0910/2008/159879 DT 14/19-11-2008 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW DELHI.

¶24

EXT.P8: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.3113/N3/2003/L.S.G DEPT. DT 5.2.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 4028 OF 2010 &

¶29

14368 OF 2011

¶30

===================

¶31

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2013

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

These writ petitions are filed by schools affiliated to the CBSE and they say that they are entitled to be exempted from the levy of property tax payable under the provision of Section 235 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. Section 235(d) as it originally stood provided that the buildings recognised by Government or registered with the Municipality and owned and occupied by educational institutions and used for teaching are exempted from property tax. However, Section 235 was substituted by Act 30 of 2009 w.e.f. 7/10/2009 and the substituted section 235(b) reads thus:

¶34

“235. Exemption from property tax, service cess etc- The following buildings and lands shall be exempted from the property tax as may be levied under section 233 and service cess as may be levied under sub-section (4) of section 230, namely:-

¶35

(a)

¶36

(b) buildings exclusively used for educational purposes or allied purposes under the ownership of educational institutions owned by the Government, aided or functioning with the financial assistance of the Government and the hostel buildings wherein the students of the said institutions reside.”

¶37

14368 OF 2011

¶38

WPC.Nos. 4028 OF 2010 &

¶39

:2 :

¶40

Nobody has a case that the petitioners are educational institutions owned by the Government, aided or is functioning with the financial assistance of the Government. If that be so, they are not exempted from the levy of property tax and the claim of exemption is untenable.

¶41

However in so far as WP(C) No. 4028/10 is concerned, Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices show that the property tax demanded is for the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10. Similarly, Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices produced in WP(C) No. 14368/11 show that the property tax demanded is for the period from 200708 to 2010-11. As already stated, until 7/10/2009 when Section 235 was substituted, Section 235(d) as it stood then entitled the petitioners for exemption. The substitution of the section being only prospective, the liability for property tax can arise only for the period subsequent to 7/10/2009. Consequently, the demands for property tax for the period prior to 7/10/2009 are unsustainable.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of quashing Exs.P1 and P2 in WP(C) No. 4028/10 and Exts.P4 and P5 in WP(C)

¶43

14368 OF 2011

¶44

WPC.Nos. 4028 OF 2010 &

¶45

:3 :

¶46

No. 14368/11 and directing that the Punalur Municipality, the 2^nd respondent in these cases will issue fresh demands for property tax in the light of the findings hereinabove.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶49

¶50

//True Copy//

¶51

PA to Judge

Fathima Public School v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fathima Public School v. State of Kerala

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

Sukamb Constructions Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S.Shawas Homes Pvt.Ltd.

P.R.Rajesh Vs State Bank of India

Biju P.T Vs Authorised Officer,Federal Bank

C.N.Balan Vs Sree Narayana Finance Corporation Limited

John.v.R. Vs Commercial Tax Officer

A.R.Ramachandran Vs Andhra Bank