High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit Appeal and Writ Petition allowed; Exts. P6...

DM Education & Research Foundation v. State of Kerala & Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & The Tahasildar, Vyathiri, Wayand

Case / Petition Number:W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
  • Mohammed Nias C.P.
Judgment Date
2023-08-02
Court Decision / Holding
The Writ Appeal and Writ Petition are allowed. Ext. P7, along with Exts. P6, P8 and P9, are quashed, and the matter is remitted to the Government for fresh adjudication of the exemption claim under the Kerala Building Tax Act, in light of the Supreme Court precedents cited, within two months from receipt of a copy of the judgment after hearing the petitioner.
Final Disposition
Writ Appeal and Writ Petition allowed; Exts. P6, P7, P8, P9 quashed; matter remanded to Government for fresh adjudication within two months after hearing the petitioner; per-building unit test to be applied in light of cited Supreme Court judgments.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • DM Education & Research Foundation, a Charitable and Educational Trust, Meppadi, Wayand District

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
  • The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
  • The Tahasildar, Vyathiri, Wayand, Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. P. Martin Jose
  • • Sri. P. Prijith
  • • Sri. Thomas P. Kuruvilla
  • • Sri. Ajay Ben Jose
  • • Sri. Manjunath Menon
  • • Sri. R. Githesh
  • • Sri. Sachin Jacob Ambat
  • • Sri. Anna Linda Eden
  • • Sri. Harikrishnan S.
  • • Sri. S. Sreekumar (Sr.)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. M. M. Jasmine, Govt. Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The matter concerns a writ appeal (W.A. No. 1274 of 2023) and the connected writ petition (WP(C). No. 19320 of 2023) filed by DM Education & Research Foundation, a charitable educational trust, challenging orders under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 that denied exemption and demanded building tax on several buildings at Meppadi, Wayanad. The foundation contends that exemption should be determined for each building as a unit and not by aggregating the entire plinth area of all buildings. It argues that exemption is available where a building is principally used for religious, charitable or educational purposes, and that the test must be applied to the building as a whole, guided by the Explanation to the relevant provision. The Government’s order (Ext. P7) denying exemption to some buildings and the consequential assessments (Exts. P6, P8, P9) are challenged as misreading the legal framework. The High Court, in a Division Bench, agrees that the Government failed to apply the correct legal perspective and that the exemption cannot be computed by total plinth area alone. Relying on Supreme Court guidance in Government of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent and Lisie Medical Institutions v. State of Kerala, the court quashes Ext. P7 and the related orders, and remands the matter for fresh adjudication within two months, directing hearing of the petitioner.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 - Section 3(2)Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 - Explanation 1Kerala Building Tax Rules - Rule 9(1)Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 80G(5)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act applies to a building as a unit rather than by apportioning the plinth area, where the building is principally used for religious, charitable or educational purposes; the concept of ‘principally used inter alia’ and the unitary assessment aligns with Supreme Court guidance in Government of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent and Lisie Medical Institutions v. State of Kerala.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that exemption under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 must be assessed for each building as a unit, and that exemption hinges on whether the building is principally used for religious, charitable or educational purposes. It asserts that the Government erred by calculating the exemption from the total plinth area of all buildings and then excluding areas used for charitable activity, instead of applying the per-building unit test as clarified by Supreme Court judgments (Govt. of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent and Lisie Medical Institutions v. State of Kerala). It prays for quashing Exts. P6–P9 and Ext. P7, and for fresh adjudication.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the orders under Exts. P6–P9, including Ext. P7 denying the exemption to some buildings, and contended that the building tax assessments were in conformity with the statute and its provisions; the Government’s approach in assessing exemptions was challenged by the petitioner and ultimately found unsuitable by the court.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Government of Kerala and Another v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent2021 (2) KHC 188 (SC)PositiveUsed to establish that exemption must be considered per building unit and that the test is whether a building is principally used for charitable purposes, incorporating Explanation 1 and the per-building unit principle.
Lisie Medical Institutions v. State of Kerala and Ors.Civil Appeal No. 6799/2017 (SC)PositiveCited for the interpretation of ‘charitable’ purpose and per-building unit assessment in determining exemption, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s doctrinal approach.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against DM Education & Research Foundation v. State of Kerala & Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & The Tahasildar, Vyathiri, Wayand and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2023/11TH SRAVANA, 1945** ## **W.A.NO.1274 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.6.2023 IN WP(C).NO.19320/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:** **1 DM EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION, A CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NASEERA NAGAR, MEPPADI P.O. WAYANAD DISTRICT – 673577 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY & LAW OFFICER, MR.ZALAZI KALLANGODAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KALLANGODAN.** **BY ADV.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE BY ADV.SRI.P.PRIJITH BY ADV.SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA BY ADV.SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE BY ADV.SRI.MANJUNATH MENON BY ADV.SRI.R.GITHESH BY ADV.SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT BY ADV.SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN BY ADV.SRI.HARIKRISHNAN S. BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001** **2 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.** **W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 :: 2 ::** **3 THE TAHASILDAR VYTHIRI, WAYANAD, PIN – 673 576.** **BY SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVT. PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2023 ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.19320/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 :: 3 ::** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2023/11TH SRAVANA, 1945** **W.P(C).NO.19320 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** **DM EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION, A CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NASEERA NAGAR, MEPPADI P.O. WAYANAD DISTRICT – 673577 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY & LAW OFFICER, MR.ZALAZI KALLANGODAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KALLANGODAN.** **BY ADV.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE BY ADV.SRI.P.PRIJITH BY ADV.SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA BY ADV.SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE BY ADV.SRI.MANJUNATH MENON BY ADV.SRI.R.GITHESH BY ADV.SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT BY ADV.SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN BY ADV.SRI.HARIKRISHNAN S. BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001** - **2 THE SECRETARY,** **W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 :: 4 ::** ## **DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001** **3 THE TAHASILDAR, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD, PIN – 673576** **BY SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVT. PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2023 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1274/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 :: 5 ::** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.** The writ appeal aforementioned has been preferred challenging the interim order dated 14.6.2023 passed in W.P. (C).No.19320/2023. It was while considering the legality of the interim order passed in the writ petition that we felt that in the nature of the relief that was sought in the writ petition, the writ petition and the writ appeal could be disposed by a common judgment. We therefore called for the writ petition to be posted before us, and we have heard the writ petitioner and the respondents in both the writ petition and the writ appeal. 2. The writ petition was preferred impugning Exts.P6 to P9 orders passed by the respondents finding the writ petitioner liable to amounts by way of building tax in respect of some buildings constructed by it. While Ext.P7 is the order passed by the Government denying the benefit of exemption from building tax to some of the buildings constructed by the writ petitioner, Ext.P6 is **W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 :: 6 ::** the consequential order passed by the Tahsildar/Assessing Authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act and Ext.P9 is the recovery notice issued for recovery of the amounts quantified by the Tahsildar. Ext.P8 is the demand notice demanding luxury tax under the same enactment. Inasmuch as all the demands were consequent to Ext.P7 order that denied the benefit of exemption to some of the buildings constructed by the writ petitioner, the communications were impugned along with Ext.P7 in the writ petition. 3. The essential contention of the writ petitioner/appellant is that the Government had erred in considering the claim for exemption by taking the entire plinth area of all the buildings constructed by the petitioner and thereafter calculating the plinth area in respect of which the appellant satisfied the conditions for exemption as for charitable purpose, and demanding building tax on the plinth area pertaining to those spaces where the activity carried on by the petitioner did not come under charitable purpose as defined under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. When the interim prayer for a stay of the demand covered by Exts.P6 to P9 was refused by the learned Single Judge through the interim order dated 14.6.2023, the writ petitioner/appellant preferred the Writ Appeal No.1274/2023 before us. **W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 :: 7 ::** 4. On a perusal of Ext.P7 order that is impugned in the writ petition, we find that the Government, while considering the claim for exemption in terms of Section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, did not really consider the issue of exemption in the correct legal perspective. What the Government appears to have done, while considering the claim for exemption, is to calculate the total plinth area covered by all the buildings in question, and then reckoned the plinth area pertaining to the areas where the petitioner was engaged in charitable purpose and excluded the same while reckoning the balance area for the levy of building tax. In our view, the Scheme of the Kerala Building Tax Act clearly envisages that the exemption is to a building, which is principally used _inter alia_ for religious, charitable or educational purposes. The scope and ambit of the terms 'principally used for religious, charitable or educational purposes' has been clearly delineated by the Supreme Court through its judgment in **Government of Kerala and Another v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent - [2021 (2) KHC 188 (SC)]** and through the judgment dated 9.2.2023 in Civil Appeal No.6799/2017 **[M/s.Lisie Medical Institutions v. The State of Kerala and Ors.]** . It is clear from a reading of the said judgments that the consideration for exemption has to be in respect **W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 :: 8 ::** to a building as a unit and not with regard to the plinth area of a building. In other words, the test to be applied is whether each building is principally used _inter alia_ for religious, charitable or educational purposes, and while determining so, the provisions of Explanation 1 which clarifies the ambit and scope of charitable purpose has also to be looked into. The result of this exercise would be that depending upon whether or not a building is used principally for _inter alia_ religious, charitable or educational purposes, the building as a whole would qualify for the exemption or otherwise. The Kerala Building Tax Act does not envisage a situation where a part of the building alone qualifies for exemption whereas the remaining part does not. The exemption is to a building, specifically as a unit, although there may be situations where a part of the building also qualifies to be a building within the meaning of the expression under the Kerala Building Tax Act and Rules. 5. We find from a perusal of Ext.P7 order that is impugned in the writ petition that the exercise of the Government while adjudicating on the claim for exemption by the petitioner has not been on the lines indicated above. We therefore deem it necessary to quash Ext.P7 order impugned in the writ petition, as also Exts.P6, P8 and P9 orders/communication that are incidental thereto, and **W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 :: 9 ::** remit the matter back to the Government for a fresh adjudication of the claim for exemption preferred by the writ petitioner under the Kerala Building Tax Act in the light of the principles stated in the judgments of the Supreme Court referred above as also the judgment of this Court in **Lisie Medical Institutions v. State of Kerala - [2023 (4) KLT 432]** . Thus, we allow both the writ appeal and the writ petition, and direct the Government to pass fresh orders in the matter taking note of the observations above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the writ petitioner as well. The Writ Appeal and Writ Petition are allowed. **Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** **Sd/MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE** **prp/** **W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 :: 10 ::** ## **APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.19320/2023** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.214 OF 2010 OF KOZHIKODE SUB REGISTRY DATED 04.08.2010 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF EXEMPTION LETTER UNDER SECTION 80(G)(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30-01-2019 IN WP(C) NO:2836 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO:C2-14309/17 DATED 10-6-2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01-03-2021 IN WA NO:319 OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27-4-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT.) NO:686/2023/RD DATED 10-2-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29-4-2023 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER UNDER FORM V [RULE 9(1)] ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29-04-2023 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2018-2019 Exhibit11 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE** ## **W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 :: 11 ::** **AUDITED BALANCE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-2020** ## **Exhibit P12** **TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2020-2021** **Exhibit P13** **TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE "MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL M.B.B.S. ADMISSIONS REGULATIONS, 2020" ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE**