SUPERIOR ASHA BHAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of the building known as 'asha Bhavan'. THE building is used as a hostel to accommodate 'sister nurses' and other sisters working in the St. Philomina Hospital .

(2.) THE building, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is one coming within the meaning of S. 72 (1) of the Kerala panchayats Act, 1960 and hence not liable for building tax. THE counsel for the panchayat on the other hand argues that the building is used as a convent and as such not exempt from building tax. As a matter of fact, it is further contended, building tax has been levied since 1981-82 onwards.

(3.) IF that be the position, the counsel argues, the said explanation must be held to be discriminatory or in any event unreasonable and hence hit by the prohibition contained in Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of this argument the counsel relied on a ruling of the Supreme Court in State of A. P. v. Raja Reddy (AIR 1967 S. C. 1458 ). He made particular reference to the following excerpt from the said decision: "a statutory provision may offend Art. 14 of the constitution both by finding differences where there are none and by making no difference where there is one. Decided cases laid down two tests to ascertain whether a classification is permissible or not, viz. , (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii)that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question". These two tests, according to the learned counsel, are not satisfied in this case and therefore the explanation is liable to be held to be hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. I am not impressed by this argument. The approach suggestive in the above argument of the counsel cannot be taken cognisance of while considering the challenge to levy of tax as discriminatory on the ground that the exemption is granted to some alone of the how and in what directions". I am fortified in this view by a decision of the Supreme court in Sri Krishna Das v. Town Area Committee, Chigaon (1990) 3 SCC645 ). Viewed in this background the above argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the explanation is discriminatory and hence hit by the prohibition contained in Art. 14 of the Constitution is not sustainable. The same therefore is rejected.