2018 (3) TMI 1289 - HC - Indian Laws

Charitable hospital - Property tax on building - exemption from property tax - the second respondent by order dated 17.12.2015, rejected the claim for exemption, for the reason that only 15% of the patients get free treatment and therefore, the petitioner is not a charitable hospital within the meaning of Section 101(e) of the Act. Held that - There is no allegation against the petitioner that they have violated the conditions of allotment and the Government has not taken any action. Therefore what would be the proper percentage for qualifying for exemption from property tax has to be decided. At best the percentage fixed in G.O.Ms.No.460 would be an indicator. There may be a situation where even offering lesser percentage of free treatment, would still qualify for exemption, because of the specialized type of treatment offered free. Therefore, the percentage should not be misunderstood as purely a numerical figure. The respondent Corporation should take note of all the above observations how the Courts have approached the matter what other statute say and then examine the plea of the petitioner. Though the petitioner seeks for a positive direction to grant exemption, such relief cannot be granted in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it requires thorough and deep scrutiny of the various documents and records that the petitioner will produce. Therefore, necessarily matter has to be remanded to the respondent corporation for fresh consideration. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility for property tax exemption under Section 101(e) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.
2. Compliance with conditions imposed by the Government for land allotment.
3. Proper procedure for assessing exemption claims under the Act.
4. Consideration of charitable activities and their impact on exemption eligibility.
5. Authority and delegation of powers within the respondent Corporation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Property Tax Exemption under Section 101(e) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919:
The petitioner Trust, established to provide medical relief to the poor, sought exemption from property tax under Section 101(e) of the Act, which exempts buildings and lands of charitable hospitals and dispensaries from property tax. The Trust argued that it complied with the conditions of providing free treatment to a specified percentage of patients, as mandated by the Government. The Court noted that the Act does not provide a specific procedure for assessing claims for exemption, necessitating a holistic approach to determine eligibility.

2. Compliance with Conditions Imposed by the Government for Land Allotment:
The Government allotted land to the petitioner Trust with conditions to provide free treatment to 30% of outpatients and reserve 25% of beds for poor inpatients. The Trust claimed compliance with these conditions, and there was no record of the Government taking any action against the Trust for non-compliance. The Court emphasized that the Government's inaction indicated compliance with the conditions, supporting the Trust's claim for exemption.

3. Proper Procedure for Assessing Exemption Claims under the Act:
The Court highlighted the lack of a defined procedure in the Act for assessing exemption claims. It referred to other statutes and judicial precedents to guide the assessment process. The Court criticized the respondent Corporation's approach, which relied on arbitrary inspections and sample bills without a thorough examination of the Trust's activities and compliance with the conditions. The Court directed the respondent Corporation to adopt a comprehensive and holistic approach in reassessing the Trust's claim for exemption.

4. Consideration of Charitable Activities and Their Impact on Exemption Eligibility:
The Trust provided evidence of various charitable activities, including free treatment for terminal illnesses. The Court emphasized that the assessment of exemption eligibility should consider the overall charitable nature of the Trust's activities, rather than focusing solely on numerical percentages of free treatments. The Court cited precedents where hospitals providing substantial free or subsidized treatment were considered charitable, even if they charged affluent patients to sustain operations.

5. Authority and Delegation of Powers within the Respondent Corporation:
The Court noted that the impugned order rejecting the exemption claim was issued by the second respondent, without clear evidence of delegated authority from the Commissioner. The Court reiterated that the Commissioner alone was entitled to consider the exemption claim, as per previous judicial directions. The Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a thorough and fair assessment process.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the impugned order and remanding the matter to the respondent Corporation for fresh consideration. The Court directed the respondent to adopt a holistic approach, considering all relevant factors and judicial precedents, and to provide a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present its case. The Court also ordered a stay on coercive actions for property tax demand until the reassessment was completed.

← Previous Next →