THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A NO.18 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed against the judgment in M.A No.74 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appellant herein has challenged imposition of the tax by the respondents/Municipal Corporation of Hyderbad on the ground that it is a charitable educational institution and therefore it is not liable for tax under Section 202(i)(b) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act,1955 ( for short “the Act”). The learned Chief Judge did not accept the contention and dismissed the appeal. As can be seen from the record, the appellant claimed exemption and addressed a letter to the Municipal Corporation to give exemption, which was not accepted. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant-society was a registered society and memorandum of articles of the society shows that it was formed to take social and educational activity. The society is also collecting fee in terms of the structure of fee determined by the Government. Before considering the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is useful to refer to Section. 202(1) (b) (bb) of the Act as under:- 202. General tax on what premises to be levied:-- (1) The general tax shall be levied in respect of all buildings and lands in the city except--- (a) buildings and lands solely used for purposes connected with the disposal of the dead; (b) buildings and lands or portions thereof solely occupied and used for public worship or for a charitable purpose. (bb) educational institutions upto 10th class, the buildings, of 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, but serving the cause of primary education which the Government may consider from time to time. The appellant is not claiming any exemption under Section 202(i)(bb) of the Act. Originally there used to be exemption for charitable or educational purposes if the property was used and by Act 20 of 1989, w.e.f. 01-11-1990 the word “or educational” has been omitted and the only the exemption is “charitable” purpose. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend even if that word “education” was omitted, in the clause (b) of Section 202 (2) of the Act still retains the scope of exemption for buildings occupied for “educational purposes”. Evidently, the scope of Section 202(2) (b) is quite different. In fact, this is said to have been challenged in W.P.No.24227 of 2005 and the same was dismissed and the question whether the society is charitable or not is a question of fact and the remedy was found only by way of appeal to the Chief Judge. The learned Chief Judge considering the material on record and the several citations relied on by the counsel for the appellant found that there is no charitable purpose involved as per the memorandum of society and bye-laws; the predominant object is to establish educational institution though there may be other charitable work. It is also not in dispute that the society is collecting fee from the students on par with any other educational institutions being run in the State as per the formula of the Government. There is no plea or claim that any of the students were given benefit of free-education. It is to be borne in mind when the essential plea of the appellant is that as it was running the educational institution on a charitable basis, it has to be excluded from taxation, cannot be taken into consideration for the simple reason that even if there is charity sofar as the “education” is concerned, the exemption which prevailed prior to the Act 20 of 1989 has been taken away. When the intention of the Legislature is quite clear that no exemption under Section 202(1)(b) of the Act cannot be extended on the ground that the premises is an educational institution. The appellant cannot fall back on the ground that educational institution is being run on a charitable basis. The effort of the counsel for the appellant to make out as to what is charity and as to whether the collection of the fee or any amount deprives the purpose of charity has no relevancy for the simple reason that the amendment has omitted the beneficial exemption for “education” under Act 20 of 1989. If the Legislature intended to extend the benefit even for a charitable educational institution, it would not have excluded the benefit for exemption. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the appeal and the learned Chief Judge has considered all the contentions raised before this court and citations relied on by the appellant. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 19-07-2011 TSNR