CLEMANCE ANTO GRACE THOTTAPPILLY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order of the 1st respondent by which the Government took a decision that the Community Hall (Parish Hall) constructed by the church to which the petitioner is the Vicar is not entitled for exemption from payment of Building Tax. When assessment was completed without considering the exemption claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner had approached this court on an early occasion. This court by Ext.P5 judgment directed the 4th respondent to refer the dispute for decision of the Government under Section 3(2) of the Act, and the Government was directed to take a decision thereon. Ext.P6 is the consequential order issued.

(2.) The consistent case of the petitioner is that the construction of the Parish Hall is with an intention to facilitate religious education and also for other religious and charitable purposes. It is not intended to be used for any purposes other than religious and educational. Only religious seminars, retreats, anniversary celebration of the schools, etc: are being conducted and it was not given for holding any marriage celebration or any other non-religious activities. It is further stated that the Parish Hall was constructed with donations of the parishners and well-wishers of the church.

(3.) It is noticed in Ext.P6 that the 1st respondent had relied on a decision of this court reported in St.Mary's Church v. Tahsildar (2005(2) KLT 43). On the facts of that decision, it is noticed that building herein is constructed as an Auditorium which can accommodate large crowd for a marriage function or a meeting. In that case it is observed that the building is designed as an Auditorium and not constructed mainly for use as a school. In other words it is observed that the principal object of the building is commercial exploitation, i.e: for earning income by letting it out. Therefore it is held that the building in question is principally not used for religious purposes and it is not even intended for such purposes. In order to rely on the dictum laid in the above said decision, the 1st respondent in Ext.P6 noted that the petitioner admitted that "donations are being accepted from the Parish members for conducting functions in the hall." The petitioner stoutly denied the findings in Ext.P6, that he had never conceded that donations are being accepted. It is evident that in the objections raised before the 4th respondent as evidenced by Ext.P3 no such admission is made. However the question to be examined is whether the petitioner is letting out the building after collecting the rent for functions other than religious or as to whether the building is used by the petitioner themselves for any purposes other than which are religious and charitable.