IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 9791 of 2001(N) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- FR.SUPERIOR GENERAL, BETHANY ASHRAM, VADAVATHUR , REP.BY PROSECUTOR GENERAL, FR. CHRISOSTOM. BY ADV. SRI.S.VIJAYAN NAYAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.9791/2001 ORDER ON CMP. NO.15791/2001 IN OP. NO.9791/2001 DISMISSED 14.03.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 30.8.94 BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE RETURN IN FORM NO.II. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DT. 22.2.01. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DT. 24.2.01 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 24.2.01 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.9791 of 2001-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice, Ext.P5 issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The same is challenged on the ground that in the light of the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, the building is exempted from payment of building tax and therefore, the action is not correct or legal. Ext.P1 shows that the Tahsildar had passed an order stating that the building stands exempted as it belongs to a religious and charitable institution. Thereafter, petitioner was asked to file a return and accordingly Ext.P2 return was filed. The matter was heard also in the meanwhile. Ext.P4 is the written submission given by the petitioner before the Tahsildar explaining the circumstances under which exemption is claimed. 2. It is contended that in the light of the provisions of the Act, viz. Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(2), only the Government alone has got the jurisdiction to decide about the question of exemption. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that the construction of the building was completed in the year 1994 and later the building was exempted from payment of building tax. But after OP 9791/2001 -2- some time, the petitioner gave the building to another institution on rent and this aspect was reported by the Village Officer. It is accordingly contended that the petitioner became disentitled to enjoy the benefit of exemption. The contention raised is that in the light of the above fact, the assessment made now is perfectly justified. Reliance is placed on Section 3B of the Act also. 4. Going by the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the issue that arises is whether the exemption that was granted as per Ext.P1 survives. In Ext.P5, nothing is mentioned to show that the exemption that was granted as per Ext.P1, has lost its relevance. The counter affidavit also does not indicate that the order dated 30.8.1994 was communicated to the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the petitioner would have been entitled to avail the statutory remedies, if the said order was communicated at the right point of time. 5. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to communicate the order dated 30.8.1994 mentioned in para 5 of the counter affidavit, to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is directed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal which shall be filed within a further period of one month thereafter. To enable the petitioner to file the appeal and seek appropriate interim orders, the interim order granted by this court on 22.3.2001 will continue to OP 9791/2001 -3- be in force for a period of three months. The original petition is disposed of as above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 9791/2001 -4- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.9791 of 2001-N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 114th March, 2008.