Indian Pentecostal Church of God vs State of Kerala and The Tahsildar

Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner is the Indian Pentecostal Church of God. In this writ petition, they are challenging Ext. P5 Government Order rejecting their application for exemption from the purview of the Kerala Building Tax Act to the extent the same has been rejected in respect of their offices known as IPC General Council, IPC Kerala Council Office and IPC Head Office. It appears that on a previous occasion, when their claim was rejected, they approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 479/10 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P4 judgment directing that the matter shall be reconsidered excluding the auditorium for which the petitioner was held liable to pay tax. It was accordingly that the matter was reconsidered. A reading of Ext. P5 order shows that the prayer hall used by the petitioner has been granted exemption but at the same time, exemption has been declined to the area used by the petitioner for its office purpose relying on a report dated 4/9/10 of the Tahsildar, Thiruvalla to the effect that the office area is not used for religious or charitable purposes. The specific case of the petitioner is that the area of the building which is used for their office purpose is integrally connected with the religious activities and therefore qualifies as a religious purpose as contemplated in Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. However, a reading of Ext. P5 shows that the Government have merely gone by the report of the Tahsildar to the effect that the area in question was not used for religious or charitable purpose.

In my view, when a claim of this nature is examined, the authorities should have examined whether the area used for office purpose is integrally connected with the religious activities of the petitioner and if it is so found, the area should be held as exempted from the purview of the Act. Since there has not been such an examination in the case, I quash Ext. P5 to the extent exemption is declined to the petitioner in respect of the areas used by them for office purpose and I direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider the issue with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in the matter. This shall be done at any rate within three months of production of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.