IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34967 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEBUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VENAD SHOPPING COMPLEX KAPPLANDI JN., KOLLAM-21. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KEALA, REP. BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. 2. TAHSILDAR, MAVELIKKARA 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, NOORNAD, ALLEPPEY G.P. SHRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sdk+ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.34967 of 2008-K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2.When the petitioner was required by the assessing authority under the Building Tax Act, 1975 to pay tax under that Act, it placed Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) objections claiming exemption from the purview of the Act by virtue of Section 3(2). Section 3 provides that the question of exemption shall be considered by the Government. When such a statutory provision is continuing in the enactment, it is impermissible for any other statutory authority to decide the question of exemption even in cases where the eligibility for exemption, if considered as a pure question of law, would stand covered against the petitioner by virtue of certain pending proceedings of this WP(C)34967/08 -: 2 :- Court or of the Apex Court. This is because, every claim of exemption would involve disputed questions of law and fact. Therefore, the Tahsildars, who are assessing authorities, cannot but refer matters to the Government immediately on receipt of objections claiming exemption. Any failure to do so, essentially, reflects only administrative incapacity and ignorance of the relevant laws and the decisions rendered by the courts. The procedure, as aforesaid, having not been carried out, all the impugned orders after the issuance of Ext.P1 series are quashed and the second respondent is directed to forward the file in relation to Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) to the Government for consideration, in accordance with law. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/211208