CANTONMENT BOARD MEERUT Vs. PRINCIPAL, ST. JOHNS SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mohd. Isa khan, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate, has appeared on behalf of respondents.

(2.) For considering exigibility of property tax on property in question, wherein, admittedly, an educational institution, namely, St. John's School, is being run, matter was remanded to Assessment Committee by Apex Court vide order dated 6.8.2008 passed in Bunch of Civil Appeals and, thereafter, matter was considered by Assessment Committee and it construed Section 99 (2) of Cantonment Board Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1924") that it must satisfy both the requirements, i.e., (1) user by public; and (2) there is no income derived therefrom, and, having said so, it held that property in question was exigible to tax under Section 99 (2) (b) of Act, 1924. On appeal preferred by respondents 1 and 2, appellate authority, i.e., Additional District Judge, Court No 3, Meerut in Tax Appeal No. 6 of 2009 has taken the view that Section 99 (2) (b) of Act, 1924 excludes all properties wherever educational institutions are being run without imposing any further condition that it should be such educational institution which is earning no income and not otherwise. It, thus, held that since appellant is an educational institution, as per language of Section 99 (2) (b) of Act, 1924, it is exempted from property tax and having said so, it has reversed the view taken by Assessing Authority, but looking into the fact that besides that part of the building, which is being used by institution, there was some other part also, in respect whereto the exemption provision may not be applicable, it allowed the appeal partly directing the Assessing Authority to determine liability of tax in respect of play ground and residential part of the accommodation, excluding the part where the building is being used as School imparting education. It is this order, which is under challenge.

(3.) The only question raised before this Court is whether the view taken by Lower Appellate Court that educational institution per se, is exempted from tax under Section 99 (2) (b) of Act, 1924, without satisfying further requirement that it should be such an educational institution which is not earning income, is correct.