The burden to prove eligibility for the benefit of the exemption under Section 3(1) of the Act is entirely upon the person claiming exemption, and statutory provisions providing for exemptions should be strictly construed.

1. This writ petition is filed by St.John Baptist Church, Kanjirathanam P.O. As part of its centenary celebrations, utilizing the contributions made by its parishioners, the Church constructed a centenary hall, described as "Centenary Prayer Hall". It appears that when building tax payable under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1976 was demanded, the Church resisted the demand contending that the hall in question is a building used principally for religious purposes and therefore, is entitled to exemption under Section 3 of the Act.

2. The matter was referred to the Government for decision as provided in Section 3(2) of the Act. The Government after hearing the parties and considering the materials available, rejected the claim by Ext.P6 order on the ground that the building is used for commercial purposes and is not principally used for any religious purposes. Petitioner thereupon made a representation seeking review of the decision. That was also considered and rejected by Ext.P8 order of the Government. Thereafter, the third respondent issued Ext.P9, enclosing an assessment order and demanding `1,42,200/-. It was in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed contenting that the hall in question is eligible for exemption from the Building Tax and that therefore Exts.P6, P8 and P9 are illegal.

3. Section 3(1) of the Kerala Building Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) exempts buildings used principally for religious purposes from the levy of Building Tax. Section 3(2) provides that, if any question arises as to whether a building falls within any one of the categories included in Section 3 (1), the same shall be referred to the Government and that the Government shall decide the question after giving the interested parties an opportunity to present their case. It was in that manner that the issue came to be considered by the Government and decided by Ext.P6 order.

4. Section 3 of the Act provides for exemptions from the levy of tax under the Act and as per section 3(1)(b), buildings used "principally" for religious purposes are also eligible for the benefit. It is trite that statutory provisions providing for exemptions should be strictly construed and that the burden to prove eligibility for the benefit of the section is entirely upon the person claiming exemption. The words of the statute are clear that only those buildings which are used "principally" for religious purposes are eligible for the benefit of exemption. The question therefore is, whether on the materials available, the petitioner has established that the principal use of the auditorium is religious.

5. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 resolution of the General Body of the parishioners, it has been resolved to give the auditorium free of charges for marriage receptions hosted by those who have contributed money for its construction and not to give it for the use of others. It is their case that in addition to such occasional free use, on Sundays, the auditorium is used for religious teaching and that on other days, it is given for prayer services, religious seminars, religious training programmes of various parish organisations like family union meetings, YMCA, YWCA. St.Vincent De Paul Society etc.,. It is contended that for these and other religious purposes for which the auditorium is used, the Church is not collecting any rent or other charges. On this basis, the petitioner contends that the principal use of the auditorium being religious, it is entitled to exemption as provided under the Act.

6. To substantiate its contention that the auditorium is given free of charges for marriage receptions hosted by the parishioners who have made contribution towards the cost of construction and that it is not given to the use of anybody else, what is relied on by the petitioner is Ext.P1 resolution only. In my view, even if it is accepted that the claim is true, such use of the auditorium will not qualify to be a religious use