Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

In Perspective:

A Trust runs a nursing college; college buildings are exempted from building tax. But the college paid the tax in the previous year. In the next year, it objected to the Grama Panchayat's demand. In response, the Grama Panchayat has initiated coercive steps to realize the building tax. Aggrieved, the college assails the Grama Panchayat's action. These issues arise: 1. Has the whole building been exempted or only a part of it directly connected with 'educational purpose'; 2. Has the college been estopped from questioning the Grama Panchayat's action for it paid the tax in the previous year; 3. Has the petitioner acquiesced in the Grama Panchayat's demand for tax? None of these issues, I hold, sustains itself against the petitioner.

Brief Facts:

2. The petitioner is the Manager of a Nursing College run by an Educational Trust. The third respondent is the Grama Panchayath in the territorial limits of which the petitioner's College is situated. In the course of time, the Grama Panchayath issued Ext.P5 revenue recovery demand notice insisting that the petitioner should pay Rs. 1,53,411/- as building tax for the year 2009-2010. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

3. To be more specific, 'Palai Diocesan Medical Educational Trust' owns and manages 'Mar Sleeva College of Nursing'. The College has been taxed, and the Trust is answerable. But the Grama Panchayath had issued Ext.P5 notice to the petitioner, instead of either the College or the Trust. So the petitioner filed the writ petition, describing himself as the Manager of the College, though. The technicality that the Trust, a legal entity, or the College, in the alternative, ought to have filed the writ petition may not weigh us down. Disregarding the technicality, I may proceed further.

4. The College received its affiliation through Ext.P1 dated 02.11.2009 from the Mahatma Gandhi University and recognition through Ext.P2 dated 30.09.2009 from the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi. The College constructed a building to accommodate classrooms and a hostel, as well as the administrative wing of the college. Concluding that the petitioner had failed to pay the building tax, the Grama Panchayath issued Ext.P5 revenue-recovery demand notice. The notice seems to be under Rule 14 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Taxation, Levy, and Appeal) Rules, 1996 ("the Rules").

Submissions:

(a) The Petitioner's:

5. Sri Isaac Kuruvilla Illikal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that Ext.P5 violates Rule 8 of the Rules, which mandates service of bills as a pre-condition before the Grama Panchayath could invoke Rule 14 of the Rules. He has also contended that under Section 207(c) of the Panchayat Raj Act ('the Act'), a college building comprehensively stood excluded from building tax, at least, until the provision suffered an amendment on 07.10.2009.

6. The learned counsel, in elaboration of his submissions, has also submitted that the Grama Panchayat has not followed Rule 3 of the Rules: the Grama Panchayat ought to have passed a resolution determining the levy of tax before it could demand that tax. Absent the tax determination, the Grama Panchayat must have taken no coercive steps on the premise the taxpayer has failed to pay the tax.

7. Eventually, the learned counsel has taken me through the counter affidavit filed by the Grama Panchayat. According to him, the Grama Panchayat wants to sustain itself on the strength of the judgment rendered by this Court in Josegiri Hospital v. Government of Kerala, 2008(3) KLT 627. But in Unity Hospital (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2011(1) KLT 236 (F.B) a Full Bench of this Court, submits the learned counsel, declared Josegiri Hospital per incuriam.

8. To sum up his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that Ext.P5 notice cannot be sustained for the Grama Panchayath lacks the statutory backing. In other words, the notice is ultra vires of the authorities, and they cannot demand any ta