IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22317 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MAR PHILEXINOS ORTHODOX CHURCH, ATTACHACKAL P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE M.V.VARGHESE, AGED 62, S/O. LATE EAPEN VARGHESE, MADATHILETHU HOUSE, KIZHAKKUPURAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. K.S.THOMAS, SECRETARY, MAR PHILEXINOS ORTHODOX CHURCH, ATTACHACKAL P.O., KONNI, RESIDING AT KARUVALLIL HOUSE, ATTACHACKAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. MR. V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. R.D.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. KONNI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KONNI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22317 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 12th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a church represented by its trustee and the second petitioner is its secretary. The case of the petitioners is that, Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the 4th respondent imposing building tax in respect of the building belonging to the church is not correct or sustainable, since the building in question is principally being used for religious/charitable/educational purpose and is excluded under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that, as pointed in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition, before passing Ext.P1 order, the issue was raised before the 4th respondent, which however was omitted to be considered. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to have a reference for clarification by the Government, as provided under Section 3 (2) of the Act. 2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader as well, who submits on instructions that, the proceedings before the 4th respondent do not reveal any objection stated as filed by the petitioners. However, since the basic issue is as to the eligibility for exemption under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act and since there is a provision for clarification to be issued by the Government under Section 3 (2) of the Act, the matter can be caused to be considered by the Government in this regard. WP (C) No. 22317 of 2009 : 2 : 3. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P1 order passed by the 4th respondent is set aside and the 4th respondent is directed to refer the matter for clarification by the first respondent as provided under Section 3 (2) of the Act, which shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such reference, the matter shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the 1st respondent in accordance with law, within 3 months thereafter, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that since Ext.P1 assessment order has been set aside, Ext.P2 demand notice will be of no consequence and the liability of the petitioner will depend upon the outcome of the orders to be passed by the 1st respondent/Government as aforesaid. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd