The court recognized that a building primarily used for providing free accommodation to retired clergy can qualify for tax exemption under charity provisions, regardless of limited access to certain individuals.

JUDGMENT :

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.

The petitioner is a Church and this writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the Government by which the exemption sought by the petitioner from payment of building tax under Section 3 (1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 was rejected.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition is as follows:

The petitioner had constructed a building, mainly intended for using it as a housing complex for retired and aged clergymen and their families. The same was constructed with the charitable and religious aim of conducting worship and providing shelter and care for retired , aged and indigent clergymen and families of the deceased clergymen, who have no other means of livelihood and protection in their old age. Exts.P5 and P8 are the applications submitted by the petitioner, seeking exemption. However, as per Ext.P9, the Government considered the said application, and rejected the claim, after hearing the authorized representative of the petitioner. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P9.

3. A statement has been submitted on behalf of the 1^st respondent, wherein, the relief sought by the petitioner is rejected. It was averred in the said statement that, the subject buildings are constructed as residential apartments for the retired priests and widows of the deceased clergymen. There are 20 apartments and each apartment consists of a living room, bedroom, kitchen, balcony and a bathroom. This is not a building attached to any Church. It was also averred that even according to Form II return submitted by the owner, it is only shown as a residential building. Therefore, it was contended that, the finding entered into by the Government is correct and thus, dismissal of the writ petition was sought.

4. Heard, Sri.Shinto Mathew Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Reshmitha R Chandran, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. The question that arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the claim for exemption for the building of the petitioner as per Ext.P9, is justifiable or not. When it comes to the claim of the petitioner, it is discernible from the application submitted by the petitioner in this regard that, the building according to them, was constructed for the purpose of providing accommodation to retired priests, aged clergymen and their near relatives including the families of the deceased clergymen who have no other means. In Ext.P9 order, the 1^st respondent considered application, and found that the building is not used for any religious purposes. It was in these circumstances the same was rejected.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contested that as far as the building in question is concerned, as the same is being used for providing accommodation to old aged priest and clergymen of the petitioner's church, it should be treated as a charitable activity within the meaning of exemption contemplated under Section 3 (1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 . The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon various decision rendered by this Court including Anugraha Sadan Charitable Society v. Tahasildar W.P.(C) No. 37744/2007), Sr.Kochuthresia T.P v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No. 6076/2024) and Sree Sankara Santhi Nilayam and Educational Trust v. The Tahasildar (W.P.(C) No.28152/2007)

7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader places reliance upon the observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Lisie Medical Institutions v. State of Kerala and Others [(2024) 1 SCC 200] and the observations in