Kerala High Court
The Fathima Public School vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2013
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935
WP(C).No. 4028 of 2010 (C)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
THE FATHIMA PUBLIC SCHOOL, RPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGER H.SHAJAHAN, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. HAMEEDUKUTTY, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM DIST.
KERALA STATE (RESIDING AT KANNANKARA HOUSE
VALAKODE P.O., PUNALUR)
BY ADVS.SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN
SRI.N.NIRUP KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, RPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-965001.
2. THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PUNALUR
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA K.A.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2013,
ALONG WITH WP(C) No. 14368/11, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC NO.4028/10
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.14633
DT 4.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
SCHOOL.
EXT.P2: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THEDEMAND NOTICE NO.14634 DT
4.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
SCHOOL.
EXT.P3: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. NIL DT
10.8.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER SCHOOL.
EXT.P4: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT
29.4.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE
PETITIONER SCHOOL.
EXT.P5: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.(MS) 70/2005 DT
11.3.2005 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF (B)
DEPARTMENT UNDER THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.R-1
630/2009 DT 13.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C.B.S.E/AFF/SL-
01192/0910/2008/159879 DT 14/19-11-2008 ISSUED BY THE
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW DELHI.
EXT.P8: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.3113/N-
3/2003/L.S.G DEPT. DT 5.2.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NOs. 4028 OF 2010
&
14368 OF 2011
===================
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2013
J U D G M E N T
These writ petitions are filed by schools affiliated to the CBSE and they say that they are entitled to be exempted from the levy of property tax payable under the provision of Section 235 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. Section 235(d) as it originally stood provided that the buildings recognised by Government or registered with the Municipality and owned and occupied by educational institutions and used for teaching are exempted from property tax. However, Section 235 was substituted by Act 30 of 2009 w.e.f. 7/10/2009 and the substituted section 235(b) reads thus:
"235. Exemption from property tax, service cess etc- The following buildings and lands shall be exempted from the property tax as may be levied under section 233 and service cess as may be levied under sub-section (4) of section 230, namely:-
(a) .............
(b) buildings exclusively used for educational purposes or allied purposes under the ownership of educational institutions owned by the Government, aided or functioning with the financial assistance of the Government and the hostel buildings wherein the students of the said institutions reside."
WPC.Nos. 4028 OF 2010 & 14368 OF 2011 :2 :
2. Nobody has a case that the petitioners are educational institutions owned by the Government, aided or is functioning with the financial assistance of the Government. If that be so, they are not exempted from the levy of property tax and the claim of exemption is untenable.
3. However in so far as WP(C) No. 4028/10 is concerned, Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices show that the property tax demanded is for the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10. Similarly, Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices produced in WP(C) No. 14368/11 show that the property tax demanded is for the period from 2007- 08 to 2010-11. As already stated, until 7/10/2009 when Section 235 was substituted, Section 235(d) as it stood then entitled the petitioners for exemption. The substitution of the section being only prospective, the liability for property tax can arise only for the period subsequent to 7/10/2009. Consequently, the demands for property tax for the period prior to 7/10/2009 are unsustainable.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of quashing Exs.P1 and P2 in WP(C) No. 4028/10 and Exts.P4 and P5 in WP(C) WPC.Nos. 4028 OF 2010 & 14368 OF 2011 :3 : No. 14368/11 and directing that the Punalur Municipality, the 2nd respondent in these cases will issue fresh demands for property tax in the light of the findings hereinabove.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge