9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 459/2 in Kalapatti Town Panchayat. 3. In W.P. No. 14415 of 1999, the petitioner seeks to challenge the resolution passed by the third respondent town panchayat dated 24.5.1999. By the aforesaid resolution, the town panchayat held that the exemption sought from the application of property tax by the petitioner cannot be granted by the panchayat. 4. By the notice dated 29.9.1998, the panchayat sought to levy the house tax on the hospital. When the petitioner management wrote to the town panchayat that since the petitioner had not got any exemption from the Government for levying property tax, the panchayat shall continue to levy property tax on them. 5. Both the writ petitions were admitted by this Court on 17.9.1999. Pending the writ petitions, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 30.12.2002, the interim stay was made absolute on the condition that the petitioner Trust pays 50% of the amount demanded by the third respondent town panchayat within a period of eight weeks. As against the said interim order, the petitioner trust preferred two writ appeals being W.A.Nos.1465 and 1466 of 2003. The imposition of the condition for availing the interi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 10.5.1994. 10. The contention raised by the Municipal Corporation was that the petitioner Trust in their hospitals are collecting rents from the patients and, therefore, it is commercial in nature and hence the exemption provided under the MCMC Act will not enure to their benefit. The learned Judge who disposed of the writ petition, placed reliance upon the earlier judgment of this Court reported in 1993 Writ L.R. 769 in a case relating to S.N.R. Sons Charitable Trust, Coimbatore v. The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore. In that case, the Division Bench was dealing with the provisions of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act. In para 6 (at page 774), the Division Bench held as follows: ...In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act referred to earlier, we are clearly of the view that the payments made by the patients to the hospital by way of hospital charges, or stoppages or even service charges, cannot be equated to 'rent' as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, and the denial of the benefit of exemption to the appellant, on that score cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1990. This Court based upon the earlier judgment referred to above, allowed the writ petition by an order dated 05.11.1998. 14. In spite of several opportunities, the respondents have not come forward to justify the levy of property tax though more than 10 years have elapsed. Therefore, it has to be taken that the averments made in the affidavit, more particularly, what is found in paragraphs 2 to 8 stand uncontroverted. It must be stated that the petitioner Trust is entitled to exemption under Section 86(e) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Section 86(e) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act reads as follows: 86. General exemption. - The following buildings and lands shall be exempt from the property tax.- (a) to (d) ... omitted (e) charitable hospitals and dispensaries but not including residential quarters attached -thereto. 15. Apart from the fact that in respect of the very same Trust running hospitals at Madurai and Tirunelveli, this Court had categorically held that they are not liable to pay property tax as it had been statutorily exempted from such payments. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in more or less under similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether they are aided or unaided institutions they are nevertheless educational institutions as long as they are recognised by the competent authority namely the Government or the All India Council for Technical Education or Medical Council and other authorities which are competent to approve or the universities which affiliate. These institutions are different from other private tutorial colleges, training schools etc. which are not recognised by the Government or any other authority, but run purely on private basis. Para 21. Therefore, in my considered view, when once the approval is given by the competent authority or affiliation given by the universities then such educational institutions whether they are aided or not are deemed to be the educational institutions in the general terms. This is relevant because after the law relating to prohibition of caption fees has been introduced by way of legislation, there is no question of any commercial attitude educational institutions at all which are recognised. Para 22. In view of the same, I am of the considered view that apart from the fact that under the second proviso Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Assessment and Collecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restricted, recognised or otherwise, the purpose for which the building is used alone qualifies the claim for exemption. In understanding the provision it is totally unnecessary for us to get into the proviso. As had been held in many a decision, normally a proviso is enacted to carve out something special out of the general or to qualify what is in the enactment. Comparing this provision with the one that existed in 1988, it is seen that under the old provision, originally, buildings used for educational purposes including hostels and libraries open to public were exempted from house tax. The old provision also contained 2nd proviso. It read that even if the educational institutions charged rent for the occupation of the buildings used for educational purpose and hostels from the occupants, the buildings are exempt from property tax. Reading these provisions, the respondents pointed out that the intention on grant of exemption remaining the same, institutions which charged fee are outside the scope of Rule 15. We do not agree with this submission. The scope of the provision has to be understood as they appear at the point of time relevant to the year under consideration and not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
