Karnataka High Court
Sri Sugureshwara Educational And ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8791
WP No. 103253 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 103253 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)
BETWEEN:
SRI SUGURESHWARA EDUCATIONAL AND
CHARITABLE TRUST, BALLARI,
(REGISTERED TRUST)
4TH MAIN, KUVEMPU NAGAR,
BALLARI-583104,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S. PATIL,
S/O. SADASHIVAPPA GOWDA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MANAGING DIRECTOR,
R/O. #23, 4TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
KUVEMPU NAGAR-583104,
BALLARI-583104.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU -560001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD 2. THE BALLARI CITY CORPORATION,
BENCH
R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
GADAGI CHENNAPPA CIRCLE,
(ROAYAL CIRCLE), BALLARI -583101.
3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE -01,
THE BALLARI CITY CORPORATION,
GADAGI CHENNAPPA CIRCLE,
(ROYAL CIRLCE ), BALLARI-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8791
WP No. 103253 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DATED
20.05.2024 AND UNNUMBERED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the notice dated
20.05.2024 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-K.
2. In the present case, petitioner asserts that the
Sangha is established in 1916 and there are totally 46
educational institutions and 12 student hostels maintained
by the petitioner-Sangha. The petitioner-Sangha claims
that they are rendering yeoman service by imparting
quality education and it is one of the reputed educational
institution and is entitled for exemption in terms of Section
110(1)(i) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,
1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned demand notice, the
institution is before this court.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8791
3. Learned counsel Sri.C.V.Angadi appearing for
the Corporation citing the judgment rendered in the case
of Hindustan Aeronautical Limited vs State of
Karnataka, Department of Housing and Urban
Development reported in (2011) 1 Kar.L.J.564,
contends that petitioner-institution have to submit an
application and make out a case for grant of exemption.
Unless the exemption is granted, the petitioner-institution
cannot avoid payment of property tax to the corporation.
4. The said defence set up by the learned counsel
Sri.C.V.Angadi is dealt and considered by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this court in W.P.No.100921/2024 disposed off
on 14.02.2024. Similar defence was set up and the Co-
ordinate Bench was not inclined to accede to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondent-corporation. Paragraph 6 would be relevant
and the same is extracted, which reads as under:
"The decision in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited was one which
is rendered in terms of the General Exceptions under Section
110 (1) (j) of the Act which related to buildings or lands
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8791
belonging to Central Government or State Government. In
terms of the said provision, there is no complete exemption to a
Central Government or a State Government. The exemption is
qualified in terms of the building being used for the purposes of
the Government which would be exempted and if the property
is used for residential or commercial purposes, even the Central
Government or the State Government would be required to
make payment of property tax. It is in those circumstances that
this Court has held that an application has to be made for grant
of exemption since there has to be an application of mind to
determine if the concerned property since the usage of the
concerned property would be amenable for exemption or not."
5. In the light of the observations made by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this court and having regard to the fact
that an educational institution is entitled to seek
exemption, this court is not inclined to accede to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondent-corporation. As rightly held by the Co-ordinate
Bench in W.P.No.100921/2024 (supra), the
educational institution which is imparting education is
entitled for exemption in terms of Section 110(1)(i) of the
Act. The Act does not mandate that such educational
institution have to seek exemption. If the corporation were
to claim that any building used for the purpose other than
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8791
educational purposes or a purpose which is not incidental
to educational purposes, can levy tax.
6. On perusal of the demand notice, there is no
indication by the authorities that petitioner-institution is
using the building for the purpose other than educational
purpose. The impugned demand notice is not preceded by
any enquiry.
7. In that view of the matter, this court passes the
following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned demand notice dated 20.05.2024
issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-K is
hereby quashed.
iii) Since the petitioner-institution is running an
educational institution, petitioner-institution is
accordingly exempted from paying property
tax.
iv) Liberty is reserved to the respondent-
corporation to claim such property tax, if in the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8791
opinion of the respondent-corporation, the
petitioner-institution is utilizing the portion of
the building for the purpose other than
educational purposes.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
Ct-mck
