Assessments under local tax statutes require proper adjudication, especially regarding claims for exemptions based on charitable use.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act , 1955. It has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Exts.P4 and P5 assessments completed under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act , 1975 (for short “the Act”) seeking to demand building tax and luxury tax respectively, with reference to the buildings constructed and owned by the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri.Praveen .S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Alan Priyadarshi Dev, the learned Government Pleader.

3. The petitioner sought for the benefit of exemption from taxation since, according to it, the buildings in question were used principally for religious, charitable / educational purposes, which were not taxable under the provisions of the Act. However, a perusal of Ext.P4 assessment order would show that the assessing authority has only issued the printed format of the assessment order without any adjudication as regards the claim for exemption made by the petitioner. This Court in Tharu vs. Tahsildar [2003 KHC 28], has already found that such orders in printed format ought not be issued with reference to a demand for building tax under the provisions of the Act. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that it is entitled for exemption with reference to the principles laid down by the apex court in Government of Kerala and Another v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent [ 2021 (2) KHC 188 ].

4. However, Sri.Alan Priyadarshi Dev, the learned Government Pleader with reference to the instructions received by him would point out that the revenue has serious dispute as regards the claim for exemption at least as regards banquet hall constructed by the petitioner. But, as noticed earlier, none of the afore aspects had been considered while issuing the impugned order.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires a reconsideration at the hands of the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed setting aside Exts.P4 and P5 and directing the 3^rd respondent to pass fresh speaking orders, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-