LexAGASTYAR TRUST versus COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B A GA STY AR TRUST v. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ANR. MARCH 15, 2005 [S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966-Sections 27 and 29-Jmposition C of Urban Land Tax-Eligibility for exemption to a Charitable lnstitution- Held, a charitable institution is eligible to exemption only if it specifically applies under Section 27. Circulars/Government Orders-Subsequent GOMs issued, pending disposal of claim application-Consideration of-Held: Authority adjudicating D the. claim for exemption from urban land tax 'required to consider all the GOMs in existence at the time of disposal of claim application-GO/Ifs. 1947 dated 17.9.1976, 2056 dated 4.10.1976, 2625 dated 27.12.1976, 1834 (Rev.) dated 29.10.1983-Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966-Section 27. E F State Government issued Government order GOM dated.27.12.1976 declaring exemption from payment of Urban Land tax in respect of institutions recognized as Charitable Institutions. On 29.4.1977, the Income Tax Department recognized Appellant-Trust as a. Charitable Trust. Thereafter, Appellant claimed exemption of the land held by it for the period 1965 .to 1976. Assessing authority imposed urban land tax on the appellant holding that it cannot claim the benefit of Order dated 29.4.1977 to their trust since the exemption of the land was claimed only for the period 1965 to 1976. High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by appellant allowing it to approach the authorities for exemption under Section 27 of Tamil G Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. Authorities rejected the claim. Appellant again preferred Writ Petition. Meanwhile, State Government issued a fresh G.O. dated 29.10.1983 stipulating additional norms for exemption. Writ Petition was allowed directing fresh disp.osal keeping in view that Charitable Institution are exempted. Appellant requested for disposal of H 824 ~ I AGASTY AR TRUST v. COMMR. AND SECY. TO GOV. REVENUE 825 its application in terms of High Court's order. Authorities again rejected A the application on the ground that appellant did not satisfy the additional norms. Appellant again preferred Writ Petition which was dismissed by Single Judge. Writ appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Hence the present appeals. Appellant contended that the subsequent G.O.Ms. No. 1834 dated B 29.10.1983 laid down additional conditions for the grant of exemption and they will not have effect of denying the appellant the benefit as it is not retrospectiv~ in effect and consequently it can not be applied to the assessment years for which the exemption was sought. Dismissing the appeals, the Court c ·HELD : 1. While construing the claim, after remand, the authorities are under obligation to consider all the G.Os which are in existence at the time of disposal of the application. ·Therefore, the authorities had rightly applied the test in terms and conditions mentioned in G.O. dated 29.10.1983 to the case on hand. The Income Tax Department had D recognized the appellant as a Charitable Trust only on 29.4.1977 and, therefore, the said order cannot be given retrospective effect (829-G-H; 830-A) 2.1. A perusal of GO dated 27.12.1976 shows that the total exemption from payment of urban land tax is to be given to all educational, religious, E charitable and philanthropic institutions in respect of certain land. The G.O. further states that these concessions will be given with retrospective effect from the Faslis from which such exemption has been prayed for by the respective institutions on specific application to Government and on the basis of the recommendation of the Empowered Committee. F (830-H; 831-B] 2.2. The appellant based its claim only on the basis of the Government Order and of the order passed by the Income Tax Department and have not made any specific application to the Government. No earlier application was ever produced either before the G High Court or before this Court. The recommendations of the Empowered Committee have also been not produced or placed before this Court. [831-C-DJ 3. While under Section 29, the exemption is granted by the statute itself and is automatic in respect of the urban lands owned by the ij. 826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R. A institutions, the exemption under Section 27 is not so. For ex.emption under Section 27, power is vested with the State Government
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.