MOTHER SUPERIOR, VINCENTGIRI Vs. THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHODY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was assessed to tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (the Act, for brevity) in respect of a building constructed by a congregation, of which she is the Mother Superior The notice of demand served on her is Ext. P2. After receipt of the order of assessment and the notice of demand, petitioner submitted a return along with a covering letter Ext. P1 stating that the building in question is one used principally for religious and charitable purposes and hence exempt under Section 3 (1)(b) of the Act. She prayed therefore that the "proceedings" may be dropped. This was met with a reply Ext. P2 from the assessing authority, namely the Tahsildar -respondent, that if the petitioner had any objection to the assessment, she may file an appeal to the appellate authority as provided in Section 11 of the Act. Petitioner challenges Exts. P2 and P3 on the ground that the building is one used principally for religious and charitable purposes and hence exempt under Section 3 (1) (b). She contends that the only authority vested with the jurisdiction to decide this question was Government under Section 3 (2), and hence the respondent should have referred the question to Government, for its decision. Respondent has filed a counter affidavit which gives in detail, a tale of laches on the part of the petitioner. The respondent points out that the petitioner did not file any return after the construction of the building was completed, as required in Section 7 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the respondent issued a notice dated March 20, 1978 and served it on the petitioner on Match 22, 1978 calling upon her to submit a return under Section 7 (3) Petitioner did not however comply with the notice and file any return. The respondent therefore, proceeded with the matter and issued a notice under Section 9 (4) dated February 29, 1980, to appear for a hearing on March 5, 1980. This notice was served on the petitioner on March 1, 1980. But the petitioner did not appear. The respondent thereafter made detailed enquiries and completed the assessment under Section 9 (5) to the best of his judgment, and served it on the petitioner on May 14, 1984 Even this did not move the petitioner. The demand notice under Section 10 of the Act, that is Ext. P3 was thereafter served on the petitioner on June 12, 1984. It was then that; the petitioner came up with the letter Ext. P1, enclosing a return.

(2.) PETITIONER 's main contention is that when she raised the question of exemption under Section 3 (1) (b) by the letter Ext. P1 it was incumbent on the respondent, assessing authority, to refer the question to Government under Section 3 (2) of the Act. Failure to do so, it is stated, vitiates the order of assessment, and the demand.

(3.) WHEN an assessment is completed by the assessing authority, the assessee has got two options, either to file an appeal under Section 11 after paying the building tax: or to move the District Collector in revision under Section 13 to call for and examine the record of the order of assessment and pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit. The decision in the appeal under Section 11 is subject to reference to the District Court on a question of law. Or the assessee may move the District Collector in revision under Section 13 against the order of the appellate authority. The District Collector is also vested with the power to suo motu call for and examine the record of any order passed by the appellate authority or the assessing authority and pass suitable orders, Government is vested with the power to call for an examine the record of any order passed by the District Collector suo motu under Section 13.