IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 30596 of 2006(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REV.FATHER ANTO CHIRAPARAMBIL, FATHER SUPERIOR, VINCENTIAL ASHRAM, THACHAMPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.SMITHA S.PARAKKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 21.12.1990 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRL. INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX DATED 15.4.1993 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 22.3.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.2.2006 OF THIS HONOURBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 3095/2006 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.9.2006 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER WITHOUT SHOWING ANY DATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. FIRST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 9.3.2005 EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 30596 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order whereunder the Government declined exemption for part of the building assessed by the Tahsildar for building tax. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government pleader appearing for the respondents. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that building is used for religious purpose I notice that the portion used for religious purpose, namely, Chappel and connected area, are granted exemption. The balance area which is 571.07 sq. metres is only assessed for tax. While counsel for the petitioner submitted that upstair of the building made for residential purpose is for accommodation of guests who come to speak on religious matters, I do not think exemption is available to accommodation provided to guests. It is seen from the return produced that the petitioner themselves stated that the purpose is residential. Obviously and admittedly outsiders are coming and staying and extensive construction is for giving residential facility to them. I do 2 not think the purpose of visit of Guests can be reckoned by giving tax exemption for the building. Since residential portion of the building is not used for religious purposes petitioner was rightly found to be ineligible for exemption. W.P.C. therefore fails and is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3