USHA P PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Director and Principal of S.B. College of Engineering and Industrial Training Centre (ITC), which is an institution recognised both by the Government of Kerala and the Government of India as an Industrial Training Centre imparting training in various courses like Electronics and Communication, Civil Engineering, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning, Fitter Training, Draftsman (Civil), Diesel Mechanic course etc. Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the Directorate of the Technical Education prove that the petitioner s institution is recognised by the Governments. The land and building in which the educational institution is functioning, is also owned by the petitioner, who is an individual. The petitioner has been running the ITC from 1976 onwards. According to the petitioner, as per Section 235(1)(d) of the Kerala Municipality Act, the petitioner is entitled to get exemption from payment of property tax on the building of the petitioner, in which the educational institutional is functioning. However, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 notice to the petitioner demanding property tax for the year 1995-96 in respect of the building. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 reply to the same pointing out that the building is exempt from payment of property tax by virtue of Section 235(1)(d). The objections of the petitioner were rejected by the 3rd respondent and, by Ext.P6 notice dated 16.11.1996, the petitioner was directed to pay property tax within the period prescribed therein, failing which the petitioner was threatened with attachment/prosecution proceedings for coercive recovery of the amounts. The petitioner challenged Ext.P6 notice by filing O.P. No. 1814/1996. Pending disposal of the original petition, the petitioner approached the Director of Municipal Administration seeking exemption of the building from property tax. The said request was rejected by the Director by Ext.P7 order dated 26.3.1996. Against that order the petitioner approached the Government. While so, the original petition, in which Ext.P7 order was also subjected to challenge, was disposed of by this Court, by Ext. P8 judgment dated 1.3.2004, setting aside Exts.P6 and P7 and directing the Government to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner. The Government also rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since the building is not owned by the educational institution, the building is not entitled to exemption from property tax, by Ext.P9 order dated 18.9.2008. Challenging Ext.P9 order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay property tax for the building in question.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Municipality, in which also they contend that only when the building in question is under the ownership of the institution conducting the educational institution, exemption from property tax is available. According to them, the building in question is owned by the petitioner in her individual capacity and the building is not owned by the educational institution as such and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get exemption in respect of the building in question.

(3.) 1 have considered the rival contentions in detail.