IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 4767 of 2011(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PRINCIPAL SAMARITAN COLLEGE OF NURSING, SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, PAZHANGANAD-683 562. BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU-682 011. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM-683 562. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 4767 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The Principal of a Nursing College, which is a self financing educational institution, is challenging the assessment of Building Tax finalised as per Ext.P2, with respect to the hostel building constructed for accommodating students admitted to the nursing course. According to the petitioner, the building in question is liable to be exempted under section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975. It is contended that inspite of objections raised as per Ext.P3, the 2nd respondent had issued an order of assessment, in a cryptic manner in a printed form, without even considering such objections. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to a Full Bench decision of this court in Unity Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2011 (1) KLT 236(FB) wherein it is held that the hostels attached to nursing schools and other medical institutions which require compulsory hostel facility for students, for the purpose of their approval, are entitled for exemption under section 3(1)(b). In WP(C) .4767/2011 2 view of the dictum laid by the Full Bench, the assessment is unsustainable, is the contention. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P2 it is not discernible as to whether any notice was issued prior to finalisation of the assessment and also as to whether the petitioner had filed any objections. It is evident that the contention raised against the assessment was not seen considered at the time when Ext.P2 was issued. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the legal issue stands not settled and is now pending decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand points out that operation of the Full Bench decision (cited supra) has not been stayed. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, as the legal position stands now settled, it seems that the building in question is liable to be exempted. However, since the issue was not considered by the assessing authority, I am of the view that ends of justice will be achieved by remitting the matter for a fresh decision. WP(C) .4767/2011 3 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P2 order of assessment is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and to decide the issue regarding the claim for exemption, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to file objection and also an opportunity of personal hearing. 5. Needless to say that the 2nd respondent shall take note of decision of the Full Bench of this court cited above, while finalising the matter. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .4767/2011 4