HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No.300 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is filed against the Judgement in M.A.No.98 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, where-under the appellant herein has questioned the quantum of enhancement of the tax. 2. The lower appellate Court has considered the rental values and reduced the same. But, the grievance of the appellant herein is that there is no liability to pay the tax at all as per the provisions under Section 202(1)(b) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) since the institution was being run by grant-in-aid and also only running up to 10th class. The lower Court did not accept the plea of the appellant and it was found under A.P. Act 20 of 1989 under Section 202(1)(b) of the Act the exemption for buildings of educational institutions has been removed. But, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that in spite of the above removal, still if the institution is a charitable institution and the buildings are constructed by philanthropists, the tax is exempted. It is also his further contention that the school is being run by grant-in-aid and therefore, no tax can be levied. 3. As can be seen from the provisions of Section 202(1) (bb) of the Act, the exemption of tax is only for those buildings, which are donated by charitable institutions or Philanthropists, or which are depending on the grant-in-aid by the Government for the maintenance and such other educational institutions, which are not running purely on commercial lines. Evidently, in this case, grant-in-aid is given by the Government only for the purpose of subsistence and after recognition of the school. But, evidently, with the grant-in-aid the buildings are not constructed. The buildings are constructed with other funds and the source of the funds is not placed before the Court. There is no material to show that any Philanthropists have donated the building nor a Trust was created for the Charitable purpose of running the institution. In the absence of such evidence, the claim under Section 202 (1)(bb) of the Act cannot be accepted. Further-more, the lower Court has reasonably reduced the tax after the enhancement and it is not as though that the tax was collected for the first time and the appellants have been paying the tax earlier without any demur and there was no challenge before any authority even at the imposition of the tax for the first time on the buildings. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:08.09.2011 INL