IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16008 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- FR.MATHEW POTHANAMALA, VICAR, ST.SEBASTIAN'S FORANE CHURCH, NELLICKAMPOIL, ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT - 679035. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAYATHUR P.O., ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT - 679036. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 16008 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM NO. IV UNDER SECTION 9(2) OF THE BUILDING TAX ACT, 1975 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 12.1.2009. EXT.P3 : COPY OF ORDER NO. C3.21692/08 DATED 19-1-2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ASSESSING BUILDING TAX FOR RS. 77,400/-. EXT.P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO. C3.21693/08 DATED 19-1-2009 FOR RS. 18,000/-. EXT.P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25/2/2009 IN WP(C)NO. 5385/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 4698/2010/RD DATED 01-11-2010. EXT.P7 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 3-6-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : COPY OF NOTICE NO. C3.21693/2008 DATED 3/6/2011. EXT.P9 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21/1/2003 IN W.A. NO. 2605/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16008 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Vicar of a Church. The Church owns some buildings. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of building tax in respect of those buildings. The matter was referred to the Government under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The Government has passed Ext.P6 order denying exemption on the ground that the buildings are not used solely for religious purposes and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim exemption from building tax in respect of those buildings. Ext.P6 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. In Ext.P6, the findings are as follows: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. In a judgment reported as 2009(4) KLT 702 it was held that even if a hall is used for running Sunday classes, it cannot be said to be the predominant use since there are only 52 Sundays out of 365 days in a year and that it is the settled position that the building owned by W.P.(C)No.16008/11 2 religious institutions and charitable institutions when let out on rent is assessable for building tax on the use is a commercial purpose, no matter the income there from is used for religious or charitable purpose. 8. On verification of the connected records it is found that the first building is used for Sunday classes, religious meeting etc is also let out on rent for reception of marriages and the second building is used for preparing food for reception function, as store room and office of the credit union. Hence the usage of the buildings cannot be treated as purely religious purpose.” The question as to whether the buildings are used principally for religious purposes is a question of fact. In Ext.P6, that question has been considered and decided on the basis of evidence. Sufficient reasons have also been given to come to that conclusion. The petitioner has no case that the Government was actuated by mala fides while entering such findings. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings of fact. In view of the same, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P6 order. Accordingly, the challenge against the same fails. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.16008/11 3 W.P.(C)No.16008/11 4