Quashed

State Bank Institute of Learning v. the Tahsildar, Kochi

Kerala HC7 Dec 2018WP(C)/24673/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Appellate Authority's order rejecting the State Bank of India's appeal regarding building tax exemption. It held that under the Kerala Building Tax Act, adjudicating authorities must refer exemption claims for educational buildings to the Government for final decision, rather than deciding them de novo.

What did the court decide?

The Ext.P4 order was set aside and the 1st Respondent was directed to refer the matter to the Government for adjudication.

State Bank Institute of Learning Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 24673 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

STATE BANK INSTITUTE OF LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, BEACH ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682001.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON SMT.K.INDU (POURNAMI)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE TAHSILDAR, KOCHI PIN-682001.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682001.

¶12

3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695039.

¶13

R1-R3 BY SRI MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL, GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 24673 of 2018

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Petitioner State Bank of India owns a building in which it runs its training institute. Faced with a demand for the building tax, it approached the Appellate Authority. It contended that the building is used for educational purposes, so it must be exempted from the tax burden. Then the Appellate Authority passed the Ext.P4 order. Though the authority seems to have been inclined to exempt the building, he has felt that it is for the SBI to approach the Government and seek an exemption. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶20

The impugned Ext.P4 order has held that from the SBI’s appeal and the Tahsildar’s report “it is clear that the building is used for educational purposes”: for training the bank’s staff and for providing other incidental services to them. It notes the SBI’s principal contention as securing exemption from the building tax. Yet it also indicates that under the Kerala Building Tax Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer or Sub Collector has no authority to consider the SBI’s application for exemption. So it stays the further proceedings, but paradoxically it also rejects the SBI’s appeal. Then it directs the bank to approach the Government to secure exemption.

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 24673 of 2018

¶23

In the counter affidavit, the Government supports the Ext.P5. It

¶24

maintains that it is for the SBI to approach the Government. As Section 3 (1)

¶25

(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, concerns the exemption from tax,

¶26

it pays to examine that provision:

¶27

Exemptions.― (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to ― (a) buildings owned by the Government of Kerala or the Government of India or any local authority; and (b) buildings used principally for religious, charitable or educational purposes or as factories or workshops.

¶28

Explanation.― For the purposes of this subsection, “charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor and free medical relief.

¶29

(2) If any question arises as to whether a building falls under subsection 14 [or under section 3A] (1), it shall be referred to the Government and the Government shall decide the question after giving the interested parties an opportunity to present their case.

¶30

(3) A decision of the Government under sub-section (2) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law.

¶31

(italics supplied)

¶32

Interpreting Section 3(1)(b), this Court in Holy Mary's Convent v.

¶33

The State of Kerala¹ has held that when an assessee raises a claim for exemption, the assessing authority must refer the matter to the Government.

¶34

And this proposition is seen reiterated in Santhakumaran v. Tahsildar, Chittur² .

¶35

I reckon the statutory mandate is unmistakable. If a building owner

¶36

claims exemption, then the adjudicating authority—be it the primary 1judgment dated 29.03.2016 in W.P.C No.11854 of 2016 2judgment dated 22.09.2015 in W.P.(C) No.27380 of 2015

¶37

¶38

WP(C).No. 24673 of 2018

¶39

authority or the Appellate one—ought to refer the dispute to the Government. True, that reference is not a mechanical or ritualistic act. The authority will first look into the claim, derive prima facie satisfaction on the building owner’s claim, and then refer the matter to the Government.

¶40

Here, the Ext.P4 appellate order does record its satisfaction about the SBI’s claim for exemption. Thus satisfied, the appellate authority must have referred the matter to the Government. It was not done. I, therefore, hold that the Ext.P4 order cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set it aside.

¶41

As a result, the 1st respondent, as the Assessing Authority, will refer the matter to the Government. So referred, the Government will notify the SBI and adjudicate the issue. Until the Government decides on the issue, the authorities will defer all coercive steps.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

JUDGE

SB/10/12/18

WP(C).No. 24673 of 2018

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY TEH 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02/06/2015.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22/06/2015.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING
	RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT DATED 29/06/2015.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07/08/2015.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/10/2015.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11- 07-2018.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED BY THE
	PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/07/2018.

¶52

RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL

¶53

// TRUE COPY //

¶54

P.A TO JUDGE

State Bank Institute of Learning v. the Tahsildar, Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank Institute of Learning v. the Tahsildar, Kochi

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

M.a.Babu Vs Union of India

Naseera Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

V.S.Devarajan Vs State of Kerala

Benny P.P. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer-Ii

Jessy Roy Vs Union of India

Raj Mohanan P.v., Vs Executive Officer