Partly allowed

Fr.Paul Potteckal Cmi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur

Kerala HC12 Mar 2024WP(C)/176/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the Government order denying building tax exemption for a charitable trust, noting a delay in applying the Supreme Court judgment in Mother Superior, Adoration Convent. The matter was remitted to the State representative for fresh consideration within three months following a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 order quashed and remitted to the additional fourth respondent for fresh consideration within three months after hearing.

Fr.Paul Potteckal Cmi Vs Revenue Divisional Officer… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 176 OF 2013

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

FR.PAUL POTTECKAL CMI
AGED 62 YEARS
DIRECTOR INSIGHT COUNCELLING CENTRE
CHETTUPUZHA
PALLAZHY, THRISSUR
BY ADV SRI.C.A.ANOOP

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, PIN-680001

¶10

2 TAHSILDAR THRISSUR, PIN-680001

¶11

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR, PIN-680001

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

DHEERAJ S. -G.P.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.176 of 2013

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner claims to be a registered Charitable Trust entitled to exemption from building tax under the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Building Tax Act, 1975. The original authority, by Ext.P2 order, rejected the claim for exemption from building tax without referring the matter for the consideration of the Government.

¶19

When the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector, the claim of the petitioner for exemption from payment of building tax was referred to the Government. The Government vide Ext.P4 order

¶20

held that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption from payment of building tax.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue has recently been considered by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Civil

¶22

WP(C)No.176 of 2013

¶23

¶24

Appeal No.202 of 2012 dated 01.03.2021 ( Government of Kerala and Another v. Mother Superior, Adoration Convent; [(2021) 5 SCC 602]) wherein paragraph 11, it is held as follows;

¶25

“11. Before coming to the case law that has been cited before us, it is important to first analyse Section 3(1)(b) with which we are directly concerned. First and foremost, the subject matter is "buildings" which as defined, would include a house or other structure. Secondly, the exemption is based upon user and not ownership. Third, what is important is the expression "principally", showing thereby that the legislature decided to grant this exemption qua buildings which are "principally" and not exclusively used for the purposes mentioned therein. Dominant object therefore is the test to be applied to see whether such building is or is not exempt. Fourthly, religious, charitable or educational purposes are earmarked by the legislature as qualifying for the exemption as they do not pertain to business or commercial activity. Fifthly, what is important is that even factories or workshops which produce goods and provide services are also exempt, despite profit motive, as the legislature obviously wishes to boost production in factories and services in workshops. What is important to note is that the expression “used principally for” is wider than

¶26

WP(C)No.176 of 2013

¶27

¶28

the expression “as” which precedes the words “factories or workshops”.”

¶29

It is submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied, if Ext.P4 order of the Government is set aside and the matter is directed to be considered having regard to the findings of the Supreme Court in the judgment in Mother Superior, Adoration Convent (supra).

¶30

Heard the learned Government Pleader

¶31

also.

¶32

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the limited nature of relief now sought for by the petitioner and having regard to the fact that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mother Superior, Adoration Convent (supra) was rendered after Ext.P4 order was issued by the Government, Ext.P4 order is quashed and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. Since the Government is not a party to the writ petition, the State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue (Special Cell) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram is suo motu

¶33

¶34

¶35

impleaded as additional fourth respondent to the writ petition. The additional fourth respondent shall pass fresh orders regarding the claim of the petitioner for exemption, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and having due regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mother Superior, Adoration Convent (supra). I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that it will be open to the additional fourth respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as directed above. Fresh orders shall be passed as directed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶37

Sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE

rkj

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 176/2013

¶42

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHI`	`BITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE` `10.09` `AND` `NO.24`	`COPY` `.1996` `RELIGI` `5/1996`	`O` `RE` `OUS` `/4)`	`F TH` `GISTE` `TRUS`	`E TRUST DEED DATED` `RED UNDER CHARITABLE` `T ACT, 1920 (REGISTER`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE` `THRIS`	`COPY` `UR DAT`	`OF` `ED`	`THE` `28.7.`	`PROCEEDINGS OF RDO,` `2010`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE` `ISSUE` `THRIS`	`COPY` `D BY` `SUR`	`OF`	`THE` `THE`	`ORDER DATED 4.8.2011` `DISTRICT COLLECTOR,`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE` `(MS)N`	`COPY` `O.6021`	`OF` `/12`	`THE` `/REV.`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.` `DATED 27.10.2012`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE` `PETIT`	`COPY` `IONER`	`O` `DAT`	`F TH` `ED 20`	`E AFFIDAVIT BY THE` `.10.2011`

Fr.Paul Potteckal Cmi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fr.Paul Potteckal Cmi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur

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

State of Kerala Vs N.E.Abraham

Sreemathi Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim M.M. Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Kerala State Consumer Federation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise

Maheen Kannu M. Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Nizamudheen M K Vs Union of India