Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (9) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he impugned order. It appears that the property owned by the petitioner wherein the hospital has been established has also been exempted from the levy of property tax by the authorities concerned. The respondents ought to have examined the plea of exemption in a proper manner and not mechanically as had been done in the instant case. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration who shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representatives of the petitioner, peruse all the documents and take a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed to have appeared before the second respondent and furnished all information and records that were sought for. 2.The petitioner's case is that they purchased the property for constructing Children's Hospital in the year 1980 and on the date when the writ petition was filed, the hospital was 80 bedded hospital with 11 Doctors and 95 para-medical staff and the hospital was established as a no-profit-no-loss organization to help the poor children. The petitioner-trust would further state that if there is any surplus left after meeting the expenditures, the same is ploughed back to improve the infrastructure facilities. The petitioner is stated to have constructed a hostel for working women with a grant of Central Government, which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ection to the first respondent to dispose of the pending application within three months. Since the plea of exemption was negatived, the petitioner challenged the same by filing writ petition in W.P.No.30894 of 2000. This writ petition was disposed of on 29.08.2003, directing the first respondent to give another opportunity to the petitioner trust to furnish the documents and to consider the application for exemption on merits. After which, the petitioner submitted representations dated 24.07.2004 and 08.11.2004. Pending consideration of the exemption, the petitioner has paid a sum of ₹ 94,152/- on 26.01.1997 towards the urban land tax for the faslis 1389 to 1400. Later the petitioner has paid a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- on 10.04.2002 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecords produced by the petitioner would reveal that the said condition has been fulfilled in the relevant assessment order for the block period of three years. However, without taking note of the same, the first respondent has mechanically rejected the claim for exemption. The petitioner's further case is that they have registered under Section 12(A)(A) of the Income Tax Act and also obtained exemption under Section 80(G) of the Act. The stand taken by the respondent is that though the petitioner might be registered as a charitable organization for the purpose of income tax and might have been exempted from the levy of income tax on donations etc., that have absolutely no parity on the claim for urban land tax. 8.The second responden .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the instant case. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 10.Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration who shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representatives of the petitioner, peruse all the documents and take a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the earlier proceedings or order. It is submitted that the petitioner has deposited 50% of the demand as a condition precedent for grant of stay. The said deposit shall remain as such and it shall abide by the orders to be passed by the first respondent in terms of the above directions. Ti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates