Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0271
and 'used' only for teaching. Therefore, under the present Act, in order to become entitled for exemption from the property tax, mere use of the building for educational purpose is not sufficient and such building should be one 'owned and occupied' by such recognised educational institutions. In the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Novopan India's case (supra) and reiterated in the subsequent decisions, the provision relating to exemption under S.235(1)(d) of the Act has to be construed strictly and the 1st respondent, in order to succeed, must establish that her claim for exception squarely falls under the said provision. S.235(1)(d) of the Act says, as it stood prior to its substitution by Act 30 of 2004, in unequivocal terms that, in order to become entitled for exemption from the pro should be one 'owned and occupied' by recognised educational institutions. The said provision, which is clear, specific and unambiguous, leaves no room for doubt that, such exemption from property tax contemplated is intended only to those buildings 'owned and occupied' by recognised educational institutions. Cherthala Municipality v. Usha P. Panicker and Others -- 2015 (1) KHC 87: 2015 (1) KLT 134 : 2015 (1) KLJ 234. [The case law pertains to S. 235 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The identical provision applicable to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is S. 207].
In Fr. Jose Thenpillil v. Karukutty Grama Panchayat and Another, an appeal for exemption from property tax was rejected by the Standing Committee for Finance on extraneous considerations. It was found that the procedure adopted by Standing Committee while rejecting appeal violated principles of natural justice. Herein it was held that reasoning based solely on extraneous considerations amounts to a decision with 'no reasons' and hence the impugned order of the Standing Committee was set aside. - Fr. Jose Thenpillil v. Karukutty Grama Panchayat and Another - 2014 (3) KHC 631: 2014 (3) KLT 916 : ILR 2014 (4) Ker. 68 : 2014 (3) KLJ 836 : AIR 2014 Ker. 181.
Exemption from property tax, service cess are available only to those educational institutions owned by the Government, aided or is functioning with the financial assistance of the Government. Mere fact that schools are affiliated to CBSE, will not be sufficient to claim exemption. For unaided schools affiliated to CBSE, liability for property tax can arise only for the period subsequent to 07/10/2009 when Section 235 was substituted. - Fathima Public School, Kollam v. State of Kerala and Another - 2013 (2) KHC 717 : 2013 (2) KLT 527. [The case law pertains to S.235 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The identical provision applicable to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is S. 207].
The exemption contemplated under S.207(1)(c) is with reference to nature of use of the building i.e. education. All what is required for exemption from tax is that the educational institution should not be unauthorised i.e. run without the approval of the Government. So long as Government approves the running of the educational institution which in this case is satisfied by virtue of N.O.C. obtained by the petitioner vide Ext. P1, the educational institution of the petitioner should be treated as recognised by the Government for the purpose of S. 207(1)(c) of the Act. – St. Mary of Leuca English Medium School v. Deputy Director of Panchayat and Another - 2006 KHC 1040 : ILR 2006 (3) Ker. 778: 2006 (3) KLT 760 : (3) KLJ 111.
72(1)(f) [corresponding to S.207 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]- Hospital letting out its building to Bank - Is not entitled to exemption - Mere fact that he no reason to claim exemption form building tax in respect of a building used for commercial purpose - The building involved in the present case is used for carrying on banking operation and not as a charitable hospital or dispensary. In case where the legislature has intended to exempt buildings from payment of building tax on the ground that it is attached to places of Worship etc. such intention is made explicitly clear by making a specific provision in that regard in the statute itself as is clear from the language used in S.72(1)(b) of the Act. Since the exemption provision, viz., S.72(1)(f) is confined only to charitable hospitals and dispensaries the appellant/Panchayat was right in rejecting the claim for exemption- Aikaranad Grama Panchayat v. Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church - 1999 (3) KLT 212 1999 (2) KLJ 34 : ILR 2000 (1) Ker. 84. [1949 (2) All.E.R. 155; AIR 1957 SC 657; AIR 1961 SC 1047; AIR 1975 SC 1492; 1990 SC 781 & 1995 (2) SCC 56 - Referred to.)
Building owned and exclusively used by nuns for worship and for education of nuns is entitled to exemption of tax - The places of Worship, the places used for charitable purposes and the places used for educational purposes together with their ancillary attachments which can be understood as regards their use in the context of other purposes are also seen to be exempt under the provisions. There is no dispute that all these three buildings which are the subject-matter of taxation process are located and situated in a common compound. It will also have to be understood and appreciated that these three buildings are ccupied by nuns and other students who are educated in the process of future nunary. From the detailed aspects of the order of Executive Officer it is seen that there is a public prayer and public worship. There is also a mass and in any judgment the word 'public' would have to be meaningfully