IMPORTANT POINT
Buildings used for educational purposes are exempt from tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. MANOJ, J.

The above writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by the issuance of Exts. P5 and P6 series of orders of assessments and notices of demand, respectively, under the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975 (Act 7 of 1975).

2. The petitioner is the Secretary of an Association that owns and manages the following educational institutions located in Kothamangalam:

An Engineering College in the Aided sector.

An Arts College in the Aided sector.

An International School following the ICIC mode of instructions.

3. It is stated, Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (the Act) exempts buildings principally used for educational purposes from building tax. This exemption encompasses the hostels and canteen facilities attached to the college and school, which the petitioner argues are essential for the core function of the institutions. However, the statutory authorities levied a tax on these facilities pursuant to Section 5 of the Act.

4. Ext.P1 reveals that the petitioner association secured an exemption from the government in 2010, coinciding with the construction and establishment of the indoor stadium and ladies' hostel attached to the Arts College. This exemption was granted in recognition of the fact that the aforementioned buildings are principally used for educational purposes. Notably, the third respondent himself issued a communication to the government, certifying that the indoor stadium and ladies' hostel qualified for exemption under the Act.

5. In the course of development activities, the petitioner association constructed three ladies' hostels for the engineering college, a postgraduate hostel and canteen for the arts college, and a hostel attached to the international school between 1995 and 2013. These facilities were built using the association's own funds supplemented by grants from statutory central bodies. All the aforementioned buildings are exclusively used for educational purposes. However, the third respondent, the designated authority under the Act, initiated proceedings against these six hostels and the canteen pursuant to the Act. This commenced with a Ext.P3 notice dated 07.02.2015 issued by the Village Officer, Kothamangalam, on behalf of the third respondent. The petitioner responded to this notice with a letter dated 25.02.2015. Subsequently, the third respondent served the petitioner with Ext. P4 series of notices dated 16.12.2016, and 901.2017. These notices, issued under Sections 9(2) / 9(4) of the Act, directed the petitioner's representative to appear before the third respondent on a specified date to produce specific documents.

6. Following this, the petitioner association designated a qualified representative to appear before the third respondent on 10.01.2017, to present their defence. This representative adequately presented the case of the petitioner, supported by relevant documentation, to the officer designated by the third respondent for this purpose, not before the Tahsildar. Notwithstanding this representation, the third respondent proceeded with an assessment under Section 9 of the Act. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with the Ext. P5 series assessment orders and the corresponding Ext. P6 series demand notices. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner association did not respond to these notices and assessment orders at that time.

7. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner approached the assessing authority, challenging the applicability of Section 3 of the Act and referencing Ext. P1 government order, which grants exemptions for the indoor stadium, stage, green room, and playground under the aforementioned statutory provision. However, the order also states that all previously granted exemptions are subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2012. Based on these assertions, the petitioner approached the statutory authority to withdraw the proceedings in consideration of the arguments presented in Ext. P7 objection.

8. I