BHAGYODAYAM COMPANY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M/s. Bhagyodayam Company, incorporated in 1927 in the erstwhile State of Cochin, under the relevant provisions of the then existing Companies Act, is before this Court, challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P7 order passed by the Government; whereby the claim for exemption mooted from the part of the petitioner has been declined, holding that the building owned and possessed by the petitioner is not principally made use for any 'charitable purpose'. The petitioner claims to be a charitable institution as certified by the Income Tax authorities and also as disclosed from Ext. P1 Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company. It is stated that Ext. P2 communication has been issued by the authorities of the Income Tax Department to the effect that, the income derived by the petitioner is being utilized for charitable activities and that, it is an institution recognized by the Income Tax Department. When the assessment was finalized in respect of the building owned by the petitioner under the Kerala Building Tax Act, the petitioner filed a revision petition as envisaged under S. 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act before the 4th respondent. In view of the coercive proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 5921 of 1998, which was disposed of as per Ext. P5 judgment dated 8.9.2005, directing the revisional authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on the revision petition. The case of the petitioner is that, instead of complying with the direction, the course pursued by the fourth respondent was by simply passing the ball from his court to the first respondent seeking for interference and it was accordingly that, Ext. P7 order was passed by the 1st respondent, rejecting the relief, which in turn is under challenge.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in detail.

(3.) During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, the Government is absolutely having no power under S. 14 of the 'Act', to have dealt with the issue, by virtue of the scheme of the statute. Reference is made to S. 14 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, which reads as follows: