HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service through learned Senior Government Pleader. By consent, appeal called out for hearing and heard. service through learned Senior Government Pleader. By consent, appeal called out for hearing and heard.

(2.) The High Court is vested with discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution to do justice; but it is not a tax collector for the State Government. If the facts and circumstances of the case so require, it is open to this court quash even an order of assessment of tax; nay it is its constitutional duty. All the more so, when there is no assessment or crystallized tax liability determined, but only rejection of an application for exemption from Building tax on untenable grounds and non application of mind to germane factors. Now, to the facts.

(3.) The appellant is a hospital which has already been recognized as a charitable institution by an order made under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 24-1-1984 by the State Government (vide Ext. P4). The appellant has constructed additional buildings within its campus in respect of which it claimed exemption from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act by an application made on 26-3-2001 (vide Ext. P5). According to the appellant, the additional buildings are to be used for housing a nursing school, a hospital run building, and hospital quarters. An order of assessment of building tax was made (Ext. P8) without application of mind to the facts urged in the application at Ext. P7. This order was impugned in the Writ Petition. The Petition was disposed by the impugned order of the learned single judge who set aside the order of assessment and remitted the matter for consideration by the State Government, which would have to take into account the expansive meaning of "charitable purpose" as indicated in the explanation to Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. That the predominant activity of the appellant is charitable is beyond cavil, in as much as Ext. P4 order of the Government accepts it. It was necessary for the assessing officer to apply his mind to the purpose for which the additional building is going to be used. For that, he could have called upon the appellant to justify his claim on material, and if there was yet a doubt, then Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act requires him to refer the matter to the State Government. Without any application of mind, the assessing officer rejected the claim of the appellant. This, to say the least, was illegal and impermissible. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the order by its original Petition.