IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16853 of 2003(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. FR.JOHN CHACKO, VICAR, ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PUTHUR, PUTHUR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK. 2. T.K.GEORGEKUTTY, TRUSTEE, ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PUTHUR, PUTHUR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.REJI MATHEW KAVALAYIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (N) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALULK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHUR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16853 OF 2003 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Whether the 'Parish Hall' of the building belonging to the Church represented by the petitioners is entitled for exemption from building tax by virtue of the stipulation under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act (Kerala Building Tax Act) is the issue involved herein. 2. Originally two separate portions of the building having separate door numbers and used as a 'Parish Hall' and the other to run an English Medium School, were sought to be assessed under the Building Tax, which led to Ext.P3 and P4 assessment orders. When the matter was subjected to challenge before this Court in O.P. 29131/2002, Ext. P7 judgment was passed directing the matter to be referred to the Government for clarifying the position as provided under Section 3(2) of the Act. 3. Pursuant to the above, the first respondent considered the question in detail and passed Ext.P9 order holding that the building where the 'English medium school' was being run by the petitioners was “principally being used for educational purpose” and hence it was entitled to have exemption. But in the case of building where the 'Parish Hall' was WPC NO.16853/2003 2 situated, it was observed that the said hall was being given on rent for conducting marriages and such other functions. The contention of the petitioner that Sunday school was also being conducted in the parish hall was held as not a tenable ground to conclude that the building was being “principally used for any religious activities” or educational purposes. Accordingly, the exemption sought for with respect to the building where the parish hall is situated was turned down; which in turn is subjected to challenge in the present O.P. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the facts and figures brought to light clearly reveal that the 'Parish Hall' belonging to the petitioners is never liable to be exempted under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act as it was being used for various purposes and could not be confined to as principally being used for religious or educational activities as envisaged. The learned Government Pleader also refers to the dictum laid down by this Court decision reported in St.Mary's Church Vs. Tahsildar in (2005) 2 KLT 43 holding that the auditorium concerned therein, which was actually being used for marriage purposes as well, was not liable to be exempted, since it was not being used principally for religious purposes. It was also held therein that the usage of the hall for conducting 'Sunday School' will in no way advance the WPC NO.16853/2003 3 case of the petitioner therein, to have the building exempted, particularly since 'Sunday School' will be functioning only on Sundays and as such there could not have been more the 56 such instances which can't lead to the inference that the building was being principally used for educational purposes. 5. The learned Government Pleader also refers to another un reported decision of this Court and copy of the said verdict dated 08.03.2006 in O.P. 10898/2008 is placed for consideration of this Court. In the said case also, the issue involved was whether the 'Parish Hall' constructed and used for the purpose of Church was entitled to be exempted from the tax liability. It has been observed therein that, what is relevant for the purpose of considering exemption, is not the ownership but the use of the building. It is also been made clear that no general exemption is granted to all buildings owned by religious institutions and exemption is only for the buildings principally used for religious or charitable purposes. Though it has been observed that the marriage conducted in the Church is a religious function, the 'party' held in the parish hall taken on rent cannot be of religious nature. More so, when the 'Parish Hall' can be taken on rent by parties belonging to any sector, for conducting similar functions, making use of the hall and the amenities provided. WPC NO.16853/2003 4 6. Applying the dictum in the above two decisions to the case in hand, it appears that the issue stands covered against the petitioner, particularly in view of the specific averments in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit stating that the building/'Parish Hall' was not being principally used for religious purpose and that it was found as being used for purposes like marriages, engagements etc. after levying rent which has not been chosen to be rebutted by the petitioners by filing any reply affidavit. 8. In the above circumstances, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc