Telangana High Court
Society Of Jesus Mary And Joseph Holy ... vs Sattenapalli Municipality, ... on 12 November, 2018
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.5850 of 2008
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent -
Municipality in issuing the demand notices bearing assessment numbers
(i) 1027001609 pertaining to T.B. Sanatorium dated 31.10.2000 and
24.03.2007, (ii) 127007615 pertaining to Holy Family School dated
31.10.2000 (iii) 1027007619 pertaining to Holy Family English Medium
School Hostel dated 31.10.2000 (iv) pertaining to Holy Family English
Medium School dated 19.12.2007 and (v) pertaining to Holy Family
English Medium School Hostel dated 19.12.2007 as illegal and
unenforceable in view of the exemptions granted on 01.05.1987,
05.02.1993 and 12.10.1993 and a consequential direction was sought not
to demand any tax for the buildings housed (i) T.B. Sanatorium, (ii) AIDS
Center, (iii) Holy Family Hostel and (iv) Holy Family English Medium
School owned and run by the petitioner society as they come within the
purview of exemptions under Section 88 of the A.P. Municipalities Act.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act and to achieve the objects
of the society it is running Schools, Hospitals, Orphanages and T.B.
Sanatoriums and several other organizations keeping in view the need of
that locality by receiving donations from the philanthropists; the petitioner
society being a charitable institution it is enjoying the general exemptions
under Section 88 of the Municipalities Act; the respondent having satisfied
with the activities of the petitioner society exempted the society from
paying property tax with effect from 1987 under Section 88 (c) of the A.P.
Municipalities Act vide proceedings dated 01.05.1987, 05.02.1993 And
2
12.10.1993; the respondent authorities also exempted all the buildings
covered under the A.P. Municipalities Act; the respondent without looking
into the exemptions as already granted issued the impugned assessment
orders, hence the impugned demand notices are contrary to Section 88
(c) of the A.P. Municipalities Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent - Municipality.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Municipality has
relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court passed in Writ
Petition No.4214 of 2006 and batch, dated 28.12.2006, wherein it was
observed as follows.
".................Therefore, in our view, all the
recognized educational institutions including hostels,
public buildings and places used for charitable purposes
are exempt under Section 85 of the Act provided those
institutions, hostels, public buildings and places are used
for charitable purposes. That the charitable purpose is
necessary only for the places other than recognized
institutions as suggested by Mr. C. Kondanda Ram,
learned counsel, is, according to us, not correct view.
However, it will always be a question of fact whether a
particular institution is charitable institution or not.
Therefore, while answering the reference in the terms as
mentioned hereinabove, we make it clear that we have
not gone into the question as to whether the petitioners'
institutions are charitable institutions or not. Therefore,
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,
we dispose of the writ petitions as well with an
observation that before levying of the tax on the
petitioners' institutions, the authorities concerned should
address to the question as to whether the institutions are
charitable institutions or not and for such purpose the
petitioners are at liberty to make representations to the
concerned authorities within one month and after
considering such representations, the authorities may
pass appropriate orders since at no point of time the
authorities have considered whether the petitioners'
institutions are charitable institutions or not. Therefore,
we are passing such orders to enable the authorities to
pass fresh orders after considering the submissions of
the petitioners. We are also quashing the impugned
notices. The respondents shall be at liberty to raise fresh
3
claims, if any, after hearing the petitioners and deciding
their claim that they are charitable institutions.
As per the above judgment, the authorities concerned should
consider the issue as to whether the institution is charitable institution or
not.
In view of the same, the petitioner is at liberty to file a detailed
representation before the respondent with all necessary documents to
show that they are eligible for exemption under Section 88(c) of the
Municipalities Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order and, on such representation being made, the
respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon
in accordance with law. If the respondent comes to a conclusion that the
petitioner is eligible for exemption under the Municipalities Act, they
should be given the benefit of the same and, if the respondent comes to a
conclusion that the petitioner is not eligible for exemption the respondent
can proceed with the impugned demand notices.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.
Date: 12.11.2018 Nsr 4 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Writ Petition No.5850 of 2008 Date: 12.11.2018 Nsr