Disposed

Little Flower Generalate(Convent) v. Sub Collector

Kerala HC11 Jul 2024WP(C)/24821/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Catholic convent challenged assessment orders demanding one time tax and luxury tax on its buildings used for religious and charitable purposes. The court directed the State to reconsider the exemption afresh with reference to the Supreme Court's 2021 judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the 5th respondent to reconsider the exemption afresh per the Supreme Court judgment of 01.03.2021, with hearing for the petitioner, within three months.

Little Flower Generalate(Convent) Vs Sub Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 24821 OF 2019

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

LITTLE FLOWER GENERALATE(CONVENT)
VAZHAPILLY EAST, CHANGANASSERY-686 101,
REP.BY ITS SUPERIOR GENERAL.

¶5

BY ADVS.
T.O.XAVIER
SMT.V.SETHUKUTTY AMMA

¶6

RESPONDENTS :-

¶7

1 SUB COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶8

2 TAHSILDAR, VAZHAPILLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 101.

¶9

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAPILLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 101.

¶10

4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶11

5 STATE OF KERALA, LOCAL SELF ADMINISTRATION, GOVT. DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

¶12

SRI. SAYED M. THANGAL -GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 24821 OF 2019

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The above writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to quash Exts.P7 and P8 orders and to refund the one time tax and luxury tax paid by the petitioner.

¶18

The facts of the case are as follows :-

¶19

The petitioner is a registered Association under Travancore Cochin Literacy, Scientific, Charitable Act, 1955 in the name of Missionaries of Little Flower as on 16.11.1994. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property, an extent of 44 Ares of land comprising Sy.No.6/6-1 in Vazhapilly East Village. The petitioner constructed a building having 2955.41 m² in two phases. Little Flower Convent is a convent of Catholic nuns fully engaged in social, educational and charitable activities. The buildings are mainly used for religious purposes such as residence of nuns, the conducting of prayer meetings, Holy mass and formation house. Pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, the petitioner has given Ext.P2(a) reply stating that the buildings will fall under the charitable trust and they are not entitled to remit any tax. The 2^nd respondent miserably

¶20

WP(C) NO. 24821 OF 2019

¶21

¶22

failed in verifying the report submitted by the 3^rd respondent while issuing assessment orders. Ext.P3 – demand notice was issued demanding an amount of Rs.3,29,400/-. Thereafter, the Tahsildar referred the matter to the Government for taking a decision on exemption. As per Ext.P7 Government Order, the Government did not decide the issue regarding the exemption; it was left open to the Tahsildar to take a decision in respect of the judgment in W.P. (C) No.27108 of 2006, in which the SLP was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 order passed by the Government, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the case which is referred in Ext.P7 order was finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.202 of 2012 & connected matters. On the basis of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter can be reconsidered by the 1^st respondent.

¶25

WP(C) NO. 24821 OF 2019

¶26

¶27

On consideration of the afore facts, I am of the opinion

¶28

that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions :-

¶29

(i) The 5^th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, taking into consideration the Judgment dated 01.03.2021 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.202 of 2012 and connected matters, after obtaining reports from the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶30

(ii) It is made clear that before any such orders are passed, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing.

¶31

(iii) The petitioner is directed to produce the certified copy of the judgment along with the writ petition before the 5^th respondent for compliance.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶34

SMA

¶35

WP(C) NO. 24821 OF 2019

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24821/2019

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-

¶39

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRU` `CERTIFI` `AUTHORI`	`E COPY` `CATE IS` `TIES.`	`OF THE REGISTRATION` `SUED BY THE GOVERNMENT`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE` `E4/E8.1`	`COPY` `431/11 D`	`OF THE NOTICE NO NO` `ATED 5.2.2011`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE` `DATED 1`	`COPY OF` `8.2.2011`	`THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE` `OF TAX`	`COPY OF`	`THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE` `PAYMENT`	`COPY OF` `OF BUIL`	`THE RECEIPT TOWARDS THE` `DING TAX`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE` `1431/11`	`COPY OF`	`THE PROCEEDINGS NO/E4-`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A TRUE` `E4/E8-1`	`COPY OF` `431/11`	`THE NOTICE OF DEMAND NO`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`A TRUE` `DATED 1`	`COPY O` `7.7.2014`	`F THE ORDER NO 3205/14`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`A TRUE` `2839/20`	`COPY` `11/KIDS`	`OF THE ORDER REF NO.D` `DATED 20.7.2019`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`A TRUE` `1162/20`	`COPY OF` `02/LSGD`	`THE ORDER NO GO(RT) NO` `DATED 10.5.2002`
`EXHIBIT P9(a`	`A TRUE` `3590/09`	`COPY OF` `RD DATE`	`THE ORDER NO GO(RT) NO` `D 1.10.2009`

Little Flower Generalate(Convent) v. Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Little Flower Generalate(Convent) v. Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Othikandy Sasidharan Vs Othiyil Kannan, (Died)

M.v.George Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Omana Vs the Secretary, Kerala Agricultural Debt Relief Commission

K.P.Kurian, Vs State of Kerala

Corporation of Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary Vs Vyttila Mobility Hub Society, Represented by Its Managing Director

Nazeer Vs Trikkakara Municipality