CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA Vs. CHAIRMAN STANDING COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Church of South India is aggrieved that the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram has imposed property tax for its buildings situated in the L.M.S. Compound, Thiruvananthapuram for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The petitioner challenged the orders of the authorities under the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram; but as per Ext. P1 order the appeal (Ext. P3) was dismissed. Even though the present the Original Petition was filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after the amendment through C.M.P. No. 36962/2001, the Original Petition has to be treated as one under Article 227.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, S. 103 of the Kerala Municipal Corporation Act has to be given a wider meaning and if so construed, it can be seen that the petitioner's buildings would be entitled to exemption by virtue of S. 103(1)(d) of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act. It will be useful to quote S. 103(1)(d) of the Act including proviso and explanation thereunder here. "103. Exemptions.- (1) The following buildings and lands shall be exempt from the property tax :- (a) to (c) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (d) lands and buildings or portions of lands and buildings exclusively occupied and used for public worship or by a society or body for a charitable purpose : Provided that such society or body is supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions and applies its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects and does not pay any dividend or bonus to its members. Explanation - "Charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education and medical relief but does not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious teaching."

(3.) According to the petitioner, in order to attract the exemption under the aforesaid clause it is not necessary that the building should be exclusively occupied by the owner body itself. It can also be used by others based on lease and the predominant question is only whether the income generated from the building is diverted for charitable purposes. It is pointed out that there was no effort made by the authorities under the Municipal Corporations Act to examine whether income from the building is so diverted and as such the impugned orders are untenable.