IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TH FRIDAY, THE 13 DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 45147 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:

M/S. IQRAA INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE RUN BY JDT ISLAM ORPHANAGE COMMITTEE, MALAPARAMBA, CALICUT , REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DR. P.C. ANWAR, PIN - 673009 BY ADVS.

SHRI.B.KRISHNAN SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020

2 THE SUB COLLECTOR, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

3 THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGERI VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673010 OTHER PRESENT:

SMT.RESHMITHA R CHANDRAN, SR.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Hospital and Research Centre run by a charitable institution. The petitioner had earlier constructed the buildings, to be used for the purpose of conducting the hospital for which, an assessment for building tax was already made and the tax was also paid.

2. Later, the petitioner constructed a new building in the very same compound, having a plinth area of 5480.69 Sq.M. According to the petitioner, the said building was constructed separately from the other existing buildings in the premises and the same was constructed solely for the treatment of Kidney related diseases. The construction was completed on the basis of a separate permit and separate completion plan. A separate occupancy certificate was also issued to the same by the Corporation of Kozhikode.

3. However, when the assessment of the said building for the purpose of building tax under the provision of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was necessitated, Ext.P1 assessment was made by the 3^rd respondent, clubbing the new building along with the other buildings in the compound and treating all such buildings as a single unit. Thus, the total amount of building tax payable by the petitioner was fixed as Rs.50,67,800/- which was after adjusting the building tax already paid in respect of the existing buildings, as contemplated under section 5(4) of the Act.

4. As against Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 appeal before the 2^nd respondent, and it resulted in Ext.P3 appellate order by which the appeal was dismissed. Ext.P4 is the revision petition submitted by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent and the same was rejected as per Ext.P5 order. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Exts.P3 and P5 orders.

5. I have heard, Sri. R.Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Rashmitha R Chandran, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. In the writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the assessment made by the respondents by treating all the buildings in the premises as a single unit, and in addition to that, the petitioner is also aggrieved by the rejection of the claim of the petitioner seeking exemption under Section 3 (1) of the Act, as according to the petitioner the said building is being used for charitable purposes. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that, as the exemption was a matter to be considered by the Government, it ought to have been referred to the Government.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, specifically contended that, as far as the building of the petitioner in question is concerned, it is a newly constructed one, on the basis of a separate permit and is covered by a separate completion plan and occupancy certificate issued by the Corporation. For all practical purposes, the same is a separate building, in view of the fact that it is structurally independent. The activities that are being carried out in the said building relate to the treatment for the persons