The petitioner challenges levy of building tax on the building called Sree Bhadra Auditorium constructed by Charaparambu Devaswom Bhagavathi Temple, Puthencruz in Survey No.479/2 in Block 38 of Puthencruz village. The assessment of the building was made as "other building" since the building is let out for marriage and other functions on rental basis. The petitioner on the other hand resisted the assessment on the ground that the building is particularly used for religious purposes and hence it is entitled to be exempted under section 3(1)(b) of Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 ('the Act' for short). The present writ petition is the last in the line of a number of litigations starting from the year 1998.
2. When the original writ petition challenging the assessment was dismissed, the petitioner filed a writ appeal, which was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment. A Division Bench of this court noticing the fact that the petitioner had filed objection WP(c). No.7434/07 2 to the notice initiating assessment claiming exemption under section 3(1)(b) of the Act, held that on such objection being filed, Thahsildar ought to have referred the matter to the Government since the same would be a dispute which is to be decided under section 3(2) of Kerala Building Tax Act. The Thahsildar obviously could not have proceeded with the assessment without referring the issue of exemption raised by the petitioner to the Government.
3. The Government having heard the petitioner, rejected the claim by order dated 11.7.2000, which was again challenged by O.P.No.30993/2000. A learned Single Judge of this court found that the order is a cursory one containing mere statement that use of building is more commercial than charitable. Hence this court by Ext.P2 judgment, directed the Government to consider the claim for exemption which specifically refers to actual usage of building. The Thahsildar was directed to conduct an inspection of the building and satisfy himself about the usage and nature of the building and also file report regarding the same to the Government. While the matter was pending before the Government; Thahsildar in obedience to Ext.P2 judgment, filed report before the Government. The petitioner then approached WP(c). No.7434/07 3 this court with WPC.19749/2006 claiming that the report was factually wrong and raising apprehension that objection to the report would not be considered. This court disposed of the above writ petition holding that if the Government deems fit, it can call for further report from any of the subordinate authorities and directed that the petitioners objections to the report would also be considered by the competent officer in the Government, who is hearing the matter.
4. The petitioner had filed Ext.P4 objection before the Government and on notice for personal hearing, appeared before the authority, who after hearing the petitioner and considering the objections, passed Ext.P6 order, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The contention of the petitioner even at this stage is that Thahsildar had not conducted any inspection in the property. The petitioner's counsel reiterated the contentions raised by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition that the purpose for which the auditorium is used is only religious and hence is entitled to be exempted under section 3(1)(b) of the Act. The petitioner also contends that no inspection was carried on by the Thahsildar as directed by the court.
5. Learned Government Pleader, however, took me through WP(c). No.7434/07 4 Ext.P6 order and pointed out specifically the statement that the Thahsildar visited the building on 9.3.2006 with due notice to NSS Karayogam, which had been carrying on the affairs of the auditorium. It has been categorically stated in Ext.P6 that the report has been prepared after conducting inspection and after due inquiries were made.
6. Ext.P6 noticed the report of the Thahsildar, Kunnathunadu that the auditorium is used for stage programs and marriage functions and that there is in existence a "Kalyanamandapam" and also a kitchen in the under ground on the western side of the hall. It has also been recorded that Village Officer, Puthencruz reported that the rent rate of that building varies from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/-. Evidently the report of the Thahsildar has been submitted after due inspection and verification of relevant materials.
7. The contention that auditorium is used only for religious purpose is also belied by the statement made by petitioner in Ext.P4 objection filed before the Government. The petitioner pointed out that the report of the Thahsildar notices the letting out of the building for Vydhyuthi Adalath, Art of living course, Development Committee meeting of Grama Panchayat etc. and WP(c). No.7434/07 5 countered the same as all of these being beneficial to the community or religious and hence eligible to be considered for exemption. It is pertinent that petitioner does not anywhere in the objection specifically deny that the auditorium is let out for any purpose and that the same is only used for the purpose of the temple. Further, pursuant to interim direction of this court, the Thahsildar, Kunnathunadu has filed statement dated 5.1.2008 pointing out at least six instances where marriage register of Vadavucode - Puthencruz Grama Panchayat reveals the conduct of marriage ceremonies in the said auditorium. Petitioner has not filed any reply to the said statement nor has the same been controverted. In the circumstances, Ext.P6 order is unassailable. The Government having considered the entire circumstances and also report of the Thahsildar, denied exemption under section 3 (1)(b) of the Act; in the opinion of this court, on valid grounds. In the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.