Quashed

Mar Baselios College of Engg & Technology v. the Corporation of Trivandrum

Kerala HC12 Oct 2017WP(C)/529/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quash ed assessment orders and demand notices imposing property tax on educational buildings for periods prior to the amendment of the relevant Act, directing the Corporation to consider liability afresh under the law applicable to the relevant period. The challenge to the validity of the amended statutory provision was left open.

What did the court decide?

Quashed assessment orders and demand notices Exts.P10 to P12 and P14 to P17; respondent Corporation to consider liability afresh and pass fresh orders within two months.

Mar Baselios College of Engg & Technology Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/20TH ASWINA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 529 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MAR BASELIOS COLLEGE OF ENGG & TECHNOLOGY

¶8

REPRESENTED BY THE BURSAR, NALANCHIRA,

¶9

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695015.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.THOMAS GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, TRIVANDRUM-695014.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) . SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION R2 BY SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C. M. NAZAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶16

ON 12-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sdr/-

¶18

WP(C).No. 529 of 2016 (M)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT DT.30-8-2007 FOR TC XI/2387(7).

¶22

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT DT.24-4-2008 FOR TC XI/2387(8).

¶23

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT

¶24

DT.24-4-2008 FOR TC XI/2387(9).

¶25

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT DT.24-4-2008 FOR TC XI/2387(10).

¶26

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.7-7-2008 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶27

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT.24-9-2009 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶28

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.30-9-2009 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶29

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.15-3-2008 IN BUILDING NO.XI/2387(8).

¶30

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.7-4-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE

¶31

PETITIONER.

¶32

P10: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.25-1-2014 IN BUILDING NO.IX/2387(8) ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶33

P11: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.25-1-2014 IN BUILDING NO.IX/2387(9) -DO-

¶34

P12: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.25-1-2014 IN BUILDING NO.IX/2387(10) -DO-

¶35

P 13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.12-2-14 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶36

P 14: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT.8-12-14 FOR BUILDING NO.TC XI/2387(7).

¶37

P 15: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT.8-12-14 FOR BUILDING

¶38

NO.TC XI/2387(8).

¶39

WP(C).No. 529 of 2016 (M)

¶40

P 16: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT.8-12-14 FOR BUILDING NO.TC XI/2387(9).

¶41

P 17: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT.8-12-14 FOR BUILDING NO.TC XI/2387(10).

¶42

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES

¶43

ANNEXURE A THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO. R3/68515/11 DATED 2-6-2014 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION REVISING THE RATE OF PROPERTY TAX

¶44

ANNEXURE B THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 2234/RC2/2014 LSGD DATED 16-07-2014 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶49

W.P.(C). No. 529 of 2016

¶50

===================================================== Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2017

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

In this writ petition, the petitioner impugns Exts.P1 to P4 and P8 assessment orders and consequential demand notices that were passed in respect of the buildings belonging to the petitioner, and subjecting them to the levy of property tax in terms of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the buildings in question were all exempted under the erstwhile provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, as they stood prior to the amendment with effect from 07.10.2009. It is stated that, under the erstwhile provisions, since the buildings in question were recognized by the Government and owned and occupied by the educational institution, and used only for teaching, the buildings were held entitled to the benefit of exemption till the amendment with effect from 07.10.2009 which restricted the exemption to only buildings used for educational or allied purposes, under the ownership of the Government, aided or functioning with financial assistance from the Government, and hostel buildings where the students of the said institutions were residing. While the petitioner challenges the validity of Section 235 B, consequent to the amendment with effect from 07.10.2009, at the time of hearing,

¶53

-2-

¶54

W.P.(C). No. 529 of 2016

¶55

the petitioner would confine his submissions to the challenge against the aforementioned assessment orders on the limited ground that the assessment orders, to the extent they deny exemption during the period prior to the date of withdrawal of the exemption, cannot be legally sustained. The petitioner has also raised various other grounds in the challenge against the legality of the assessment orders and demand notices. The petitioner does not, however, press the contentions with regard to validity of the Section and would pray for leaving the said question open to be challenged in an appropriate case.

¶56

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

¶57

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and finding from a perusal of the orders and demand notices impugned that there is no reason forthcoming from the respondent Corporation as to why the petitioner’s building would not be entitled the benefit

¶58

-3-

¶59

W.P.(C). No. 529 of 2016

¶60

of exemption that is enjoyed for the period prior to 07.10.2009, I quash the said orders and demand notices, Exts.P10 to P12 and P14 to P17. The respondent Corporation shall consider the issue of liability of the petitioner to property tax for the said period afresh, after taking note of the statutory provisions that held the field during the relevant period, and after hearing the petitioner. The respondent Corporation shall pass fresh orders as directed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The challenge to the statutory provisions of amended S. 235 of the Act is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.

¶61

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶62

das/ 13.10.2017

Mar Baselios College of Engg & Technology v. the Corporation of Trivandrum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mar Baselios College of Engg & Technology v. the Corporation of Trivandrum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Nisha Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Varkey Johny Vs Joseph Sebastian

Elizabeth Ninan Vs Usha Titus

A.V Sidheek Vs the Authorized Officer

Local Level Monitoring Committee Vs Hamza P.T.

Kadakkal Educational Trust (Sh Engineering College), Kadakkal Vs State of Kerala