Kerala High Court
Sapienta, S.H.Convent & College vs The State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2025
2025:KER:14498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 20197 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
SAPIENTA, S.H.CONVENT & COLLEGE
AGED 78 YEARS
MUTHALAKODOM, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR
BY ADV DR.K.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKU
DISTRICT- 685 584
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 18.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).20844/2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 20844 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SANTHI BHAVAN ADORATION CONVENT,
AGED 72 YEARS
POTHY, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, VAIKOM TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MOTHER
SUPERIOR SR.ANNIE PALLIYIL, PIN - 686604
BY ADVS.
MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL
NITHINDEV C.K
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
ASSESSING AUTHORITY, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686 141
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 18.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).20197/2015, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
3
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 18th day of February, 2025)
Both these writ petitions are preferred challenging
Exts.P8 in WP(C)No. 20197/2015 and P4 in WP(C)No.
20844/2023 orders respectively, whereby the exemption
under Section 3 (1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act,1975
(For short, the Act) has been rejected to the building which is
stated to be predominantly used for religious purpose.
2. In W.P.(C).No.20197 of 2015 preferred by
Sapienta, S.H. Convent and College, it is stated that as a part
of its activities, congregation constructed a new building at
Thodupuzha village with plinth area of 1280.91 meter square
which is used principally for the residential purpose of the
sisters (nuns) i.e. as a convent and a portion of it is used as a
chapel, another portion of the building is used for running a
community college. Besides, the aforesaid building is also
used for charitable purpose like helping the people in
distress due to family problems and mental problems. In
addition, counselling and retreats are conducted for laymen
enabling them to get a peace of mind without charging any
fee. Thus the entire building is used for religious, charitable
and educational purposes.
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
3. On the other hand, W.P.(C).No.20844 of 2023 is
preferred by Santhi Bhavan, Adoration Convent, Pothy,
Thalayolaparambu, Vaikom Taluk, represented by its Mother
Superior. It is stated the convent is functioning as a unit of
Sisters of Adoration of Blessed Sacrament Congregation,
Kalamassery, a registered congregation principally engaged
in various religious and charitable activities. Those
sister(nuns) are accommodated in the buildings of the
convent. The sisters of the congregation after taking a vow
of chastity, poverty and obedience have dedicated their life
for the social upliftment of the poor and down trodden. They
are carrying out various charitable activities. These sisters
belonging to the petitioner's institution are engaged in
looking after the old and sick patients, in the nearby hospital
belonging to the congregation, who have no one to care,
irrespective of caste, creed and community as part of their
religious activities without any financial benefits. However,
the appellate orders passed by the Government as per
Exts.P8 and P4 respectively, had rejected the claim for
exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act.
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
4. The common ground for rejection in both these
cases is that, the building is not predominantly used for
religious purpose. The inmates are engaged in other
activities. This is the background in which both the cases, the
exemption under the provisions of the Act is not given to the
petitioners. This Court had an occasion to consider the
purpose of the religious institutions, especially the convents,
wherein it is clarified that, the convents are used for
accommodating nuns, since they are not allowed to reside in
their houses. Nuns have to compulsorily reside in the convent
provided to them, and they are engaged only in religious
practices and activities. The buildings used for residential
accommodation to the nuns should also be treated as
religious purpose mentioned in Section3(1)(b) of the Act.
5. This Court has allowed WP(C) No.27250 of 2006
by judgment dated 22.06.2007. It has been upheld by the
Division Bench of this Court in Mother Superior v.
Government of Kerala [2008(1) KLT 446], wherein it was
found that there cannot be any doubt that, convents are
principally engaged in religious activities. The Division Bench
of this Court in Social SG of Assissi Sisters v. KSEB
reported in [1988 (1) KLT] at para 20 defined 'convent' as
an association of parsons secluded from the world and
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
devoted to a religious life and Monastery constitute the
residence of monks living under religious vows. Spiritual
fascination has brought these persons- men and women,
under common roofs. Economic activity is thus not the
dominant aspect of the institutional life in these
establishments. Convents and Monasteries are thus outside
the pale of commercial establishments. This was again
followed in other judgments like WP(C)No. 9085/2007 dated
14.03.2012 and Writ Appeal.No.2185/2012 in judgment dated
15.02.2013 and this matter is finally answered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Government of Kerala and another v.
Mother Superior Adoration Convent [2021(5)SCC 602]
wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a reading of the
provision would show that, the object for exempting
buildings which are used principally for religious, charitable
or educational purposes would be for core religious,
charitable, or educational activity as well as purposes directly
connected with religious activity. One example will suffice to
show the difference between a purpose that is directly
connected with religious or educational activity and a
purpose which is only indirectly connected with such activity.
Take a case were, unlike the facts and Civil Appeal
No.202/2012, nuns are not residing in a building next to a
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
convent so that they may walk over to the convent for
religious instruction. Take a case where the neighboring
building to the convent is let out on rent to any member of
the public, and the rent is then utilized only for core religious
activity. Can it be said that the letting out at market rent
would be connected with religious activity because the rental
that is received is ploughed back only into religious activity?
Letting out a building for a commercial purpose would lose
any rational connection with religious activity. The indirect
connection with religious activity being the profits which are
ploughed back into religious activity would obviously not
suffice to exempt such a building. But if on the other hand,
nuns are living in a neighboring building to a convent only so
that they may receive religious instructions there or if
students are living in a hostel close to the school or college
in which they are imparted instruction, it is obvious that the
purpose of such residence is not to earn profit but residence
that is integrally connected with religious or educational
activity.
6. Per contra, to the submissions of the learned
Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, the
learned Government Pleader submitted that, the exemptions
provided under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act is predominantly for
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
the religious or charitable or educational purposes. Here in
this case, these buildings are used for accommodating nuns.
That cannot be treated as a religious purpose. Moreover, in
WP(C)No.20197/2015, some other purposes are also noticed
by the authorities with respect to the utilization of the
building claiming exemption. While assessing the issue, this
court has to look into whether the petitioners in both these
writ petitions will come within the ambit of the religious
institutions or religious purpose, since, the sisters in
WP(C)No.20844/2023 is engaged themselves in the Mercy
Hospital, nearby compound and obtaining remuneration for
their such engagements.
7. I have heard Sri. Mathew George Vadakkel, the
learned Counsel for the petitioner is WP(C)No.20844/2023,
Sri.K.P Pradeep, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in
WP(C)No.20197/2015 and the learned Government Pleader
for the respondents.
8. Going by the provisions of the Act, Section 3
provides an exemption, specifically under Section 3(1)(b),
which states that nothing in this Act shall apply to buildings
used principally for religious, charitable or educational
purposes or as factories or workshops. The explanation
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
further provides that, for the purpose of this Section,
'charitable purpose' includes relief of the poor and free
medical relief.
9. Going by the facts in both writ petitions, it
appears that, primarily, in WP(C)No.20197/2015 as stated
above, the buildings that includes a convent, a chapel and a
community college and a retreat center, are providing free
services to the common man, thereby claim to be for
religious and charitable and educational purposes.
10. On the otherhand, in WP(C)No.20844/2023, the
building which is used to accommodate the nuns, who are
destined to reside in convents due to their religious
restrictions, as they are not allowed to reside in their houses,
and are bound to reside in the accommodation provided by
their congregation. As it is found in judgment dated
22.06.2007 in WP(C)No. 27250/2006, nuns have to
compulsorily reside in convent provided to them, and they
are engaged only in religious practice and activities. The
building used for residential accommodation provided by the
nuns is also treated as used for religious purpose. This
position was subsequently clarified by the Division Bench of
this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court.
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
11. Under such circumstances, with respectful
agreement with the above proposition made by this Court as
well as the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that,
Ext.P8 in WP(C)No.20197/2015 and Ext. P4 in
WP(C)No.20844/2023 cannot sustain or have the legs to
stand.
12. Accordingly, both these orders are set aside and
the petitioners can approach the Government for exemption
provided under Section3(1)(b) of the Act. On moving such
application, the Government shall consider the said
application in the light of aforementioned judgments of this
Court as well as the Apex Court as well as the observations
made in the judgment.
Accordingly, both these writ petitions are allowed.
Sd/-
P.M MANOJ
JUDGE
AKH
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20844/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.16907 OF 1997 DATED 6.6.2000 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
18.7.2014 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C )
NO.28842 OF 2014 DATED 4.11.2022 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.3.2023
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2
EXHIBIT5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
5.4.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.7.2005,
BY WHICH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM HAS
GRANTED REGISTRATION TO THE MERCY
HOSPITAL, POTHY, KOTTAYAM UNDER
SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.11.2021
OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM
GRANTING REGISTRATION TO THE MERCY
HOSPITAL, POTHY, KOTTAYAM UNDER
SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT
1961 UPON AMENDMENT OF THE INCOME TAX
ACT,
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
26.2.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2018-2019
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA TO THE MERCY HOSPITAL, POTHY,
KOTTAYAM GRANTING FULL EXEMPTION
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
20.12.2023 FOR THE YEAR 2020-2021
ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA TO THE MERCY HOSPITAL, POTHY,
KOTTAYAM GRANTING FULL EXEMPTION
WP(C)Nos. 20197 of 2015 & 20844 of 2023
2025:KER:14498
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20197/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT
DATED 14-3-2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
14-3-2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
OP.NO.11247/2002 DT 29-5-2002 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-2-
2009 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-3-
2012 IN WPC.NO.2105/2012 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTIONING ORDER
DATED 20-11-2010 ISSUED BY THE INDIRA
GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-8-
2014 IN WA.522 OF 2013 OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-5-
2012 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSSSMENT
DATED 22-5-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATD
22-5-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 22-
5-2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IMPOSING
LUXURY TAX ON THE PETITIONER.
