IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 853 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7597/2009 Dated 01/04/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ THE PRINCIPAL,MERCY COLLEGE,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.THOMAS GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,PALAKKAD. BY G.P. SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.853 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The Writ Appeal is filed against interim order of stay granted by this court directing payment of Rs.1 lakh as condition for stay against recovery of building tax. The buildings assessed are a hostel building and a canteen which are run by the Mercy College, Palakkad. Order under challenge in the writ petition is the order issued by the Government declining exemption to buildings used as hostel and canteen. On going through the order of the Government, we find that the Government has only followed Division Bench judgment of this court in ADMINISTRATOR, JOSEGIRI HOSPITAL V. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ANOTHER reported in ILR 2008(3) KER. 381 wherein this court held that education purpose does not extent to accommodation and canteen facilities provided to students. There cannot be anything wrong with the Government Order passed following the Division Bench judgment of this Court. However, 2 petitioner's case in the W.P. is that the buildings assessed were constructed prior to the commencement of the Building Tax Act which came into effect from 1.4.1973. If the buildings were constructed prior to the commencement of the statute, then there is no justification for assessment of the buildings for building tax because the Act does not provide for assessment of existing buildings. However, Government Pleader submitted that if building is subjected to major modification or extension of plinth area falling under Section 5(3) or Section 5(4), then tax is payable after commencement of the Act. These are matters on which there is no adjudication and the issue so far decided pertains to exemption only. The Writ Appeal as well as the Writ Petition are therefore disposed of directing the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry about date of completion of construction of the two buildings involved and modification or extension, if any, carried out thereon and to make assessment only if building calls for assessment under any provisions of the Act including Section 5(3) or Section 5(4) as stated by the Government Pleader. The appellant/petitioner will furnish details about the completion of construction, permissions obtained, electrical 3 connections taken, Panchayat assessments, contracts given etc. and the Tahsildar is also free to conduct independent inspection and enquiry. In any case if assessment is proposed, details of data gathered should be furnished to the appellant/petitioner and they should be given opportunity to file objections prior to assessment and raising of demand against them. The Tahsildar is directed to pass fresh assessment orders within a period of four months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The assessments and demands are consequently vacated except the Government's decision which has become final. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms