LAXMINARAYAN SHARMA Vs. PROPERTY TAX OFFICER, SHAJAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order levying tax on the building in question -a Dharmashala under the provisions of the M.P. Nagariya Sthawar Samapattikar Adhiniyam, 1964 for the years 1966 -67, 1967 -68, 1968 -69 and 1969 -70.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this petition are these: -The petitioner Laxminarayan and his father Gokuldas bad constructed a building in Shajapur known as 'Shri Gopal Krishna Dharmashala' in the year 1943 and had dedicated the same for the exclusive use as Dharmashala by members of all communities without any distinction of race, caste, sex or religion. It was to be used for temporary stay by any person coming to Shajapur subject, however, to certain rules (Annexure A) framed by Gokuldas. Consequent upon the construction and dedication of this building for use as Dharmshala people used to come and stay there. For the stay travelers and visitors were required to pay very nominal -rather nil charges and the charges so collected were exclusively used for the maintenance, repairs etc., of the Dharmashala as also for payment of salary to the Choukidar, sweeper etc., Some time later some accommodation was added to the Dharmshala and is let out on rent. The rent so received of the additional accommodation was also exclusively used for the aforesaid purpose Regular accounts of the charges received from the travelers visitors etc , rent received from the tenants and expenditure incurred for the maintenance of the Dharmashala building as also for the payment of salary etc. to the staff were maintained and have been filed as Annexure, B to F to this petition. 3. The Assessing Authority on 24.12.1968 served a notice under sub -rule (6) of rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act and required the petitioner who is new in charge of the Dharmshala building to file a return by December. 1968 in respect of the rent received during the financial years 1966 -67, 1967 -68 and 1968 -69. In reply to this notice (Annexure) the petitioner filed the return (Annexure). After the return was filed the petitioner was called upon to pay tax as per notice (Annexure H). The petitioner again objected to levy and demand of tax under the aforesaid Act but the Property Tax Officer (respondent No. 1) rejected the objections and called upon the petitioner to pay tax as demanded. An appeal by the petitioner to the Assistant Property Tax Commissioner -respondent No. 2 and a further revision application to the Additional Property Tax Commissioner -respondent No. 3 were also not successful. Copies of the orders passed by the appellate and the revisional authorities have been filed as Annexures K and L to the petition. 4. In all these orders it has been held that under the provisions of section 6(f) of the Act and rule 33 of the Rules framed there under, the property in question was not exempt from tax under the Act; that it was not one of the institutions specified under rule 33 of the Act read with clause (ii) of the proviso to section 6 (f) of the Act and that on these grounds the levy of tax and demand thereof was quite in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid orders passed by the Taxing authorities under the Act, the petitioner has filed this petition. It is contended that the provisions of section 6(f) as they were in force during the relevant period of assessment by the respondents did not authorise the levy of and demand for tax by the respondents; that the building in question was exempt on the ground that it was for public charitable purpose and the rent received from the tenants of this building was applied exclusively for religious purpose. 6. In the return filed by the respondents, it was contended that neither according to the provisions of proviso (ii) to section 6(f) of the Act nor under rule 33 of the rules framed under the Act, the petitioner could claim exemption from payment of tax levied under the Act and that the levy of and demand for tax made by the respondents was quite in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under. We have examined the respective contentions raised by both the parties and are of the view that in this case the impugned orders levying tax and making a demand there for by the respondents is not warranted either by the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed there under. Accordingly, in our opinion, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 7. The main question to be considered in this case is as to whether the Dharmashala in question is one of the categories of the properties mentioned in section 6(f) and/or rule 33 of the rules framed there under which is exempt from payment of tax. The relevant provisions of section 6 are as under: