Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Shri Deo Radha Madhava Lalji Genoa Trust, Sagar v. Property Tax Officer, Sagar, M.P And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jan 25, 1980
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is a public trust registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, created by a will dated 19 April 1896. The trust owns a temple, a dharamshala and numerous houses which are let to tenants. According to the petitioner, rental income from the houses is applied exclusively for religious and charitable purposes and to charitable institutions.

The Property Tax Officer, Sagar (respondent No. 1), initiated proceedings under the M.P. Nagariya Sthawar Sampatti Kar Adhiniyam, 1964 (the "Adhiniyam") to assess and recover property tax on the trust's houses located in Sagar Municipality. The petitioner resisted assessment, producing detailed accounts of rental income and expenditures (including salaries, taxes, insurance premiums, legal expenses, repairs and maintenance).

Procedural history in brief:

  • By order dated 22 March 1971, the Property Tax Officer originally exempted all buildings held by the trust from property tax.
  • By order dated 25 January 1975, the Assistant Property Tax Commissioner, Jabalpur, reopened the matter. The Property Tax Officer then exempted only the dharamshala and imposed tax on other houses for 1970–71.
  • The Assistant Commissioner maintained that order on appeal, but on second appeal the Deputy Commissioner, Property Tax, Gwalior, by order dated 11 January 1975 remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Sagar, to examine the trust accounts with reference to the trust's aims and objects.
  • On remand the Assistant Commissioner examined accounts for 1970–71, 1971–72 and 1972–73 and concluded that expenditure was not exclusively for religious and charitable purposes; he exempted only the temple and dharamshala and assessed tax on the other buildings.
  • The Deputy Commissioner, Gwalior, by order dated 30 August 1975, maintained that decision. The petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 challenging the orders dated 2 July 1975 (annex. E) and 30 August 1975 (annex. F).

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the rent derived from the trust's house properties is "applied exclusively" for religious and charitable purposes so as to attract exemption under Section 6(f) of the Adhiniyam.
  2. Whether expenditures such as taxes, insurance premiums, litigation costs, salaries of employees, and repairs and maintenance—incurred in relation to trust properties—can be regarded as legitimate incidental applications of the rental income and therefore consistent with the requirement of exclusive application under Section 6(f).
  3. How the expressions "religious purposes", "public worship" and "public charity" in Section 6(f) should be construed for the purposes of assessing exemption.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The rental income from all the trust houses is applied solely to religious and charitable purposes and matters connected therewith, and thus falls within the exemption under Section 6(f) of the Adhiniyam.
  • Items of expenditure such as taxes, insurance premium, litigation costs, salaries of trust employees, repairs and maintenance and other expenses directly connected with the trust properties are incidental to, and form part of, the exclusive application of the rental income to the trust's religious and charitable objects.
  • The accounts filed (Schedules annexed to the petition) show that after meeting legitimately incurred expenses the remaining balance of rental income is applied exclusively for religious and charitable purposes.

Respondents' Position

  • The Property Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner concluded in their orders that the amounts spent by the trust were not spent exclusively for religious and charitable purposes, and therefore only the temple and dharamshala should be exempt while other houses should be taxed.
  • The Deputy Commissioner, on earlier consideration, remanded the matter for examination of accounts; on remand the Assistant Commissioner again concluded non-exclusivity and the Deputy Commissioner later maintained that conclusion (order dated 30 August 1975).
  • The opinion records that the respondents did not specifically contend in their return that, after meeting legitimate incidental expenses, the remaining balance of rental income was not applied exclusively for religious or charitable purposes.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in the following steps, based strictly on the content of the opinion:

  1. Statutory framework: The court reproduced and analyzed Section 6(f) of the Adhiniyam, which provides that buildings and land used exclusively for public worship or public charity (examples listed) are not liable to tax, subject to provisos that exclude from exemption those buildings where trade or business is carried on or rent is derived unless such rent is applied exclusively for religious purposes or to public charitable institutions.
  2. Construction of key expressions: Because the Adhiniyam and the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 do not define "religious purposes", "public worship" or "public charity", the court held these expressions admit wider interpretation. The court stated that "religious purposes" broadly include observance of rituals, ceremonies, propagation and advancement of religion; "charity" includes relief to the poor, education, medical relief and other objects of public utility.
  3. Scope of "exclusive application": The court emphasized that the terms should not be construed rigidly so as to exclude incidental expenses that are directly connected with upkeep, maintenance and existence of a trust whose objects are exclusively religious and charitable. Examples given (and accepted by the court as falling within the concept of legitimate incidental expenses) include: maintaining accounts, repairs and maintenance, employing persons to collect rent, litigation to recover rent or evict tenants, payment of taxes where applicable, and insurance premiums.
  4. Conditions for exemption under Section 6(f): The court distilled three main conditions necessary to support a claim for exemption:
    1. that the buildings/lands are exclusively used for public worship or public charity as enumerated;
    2. that the rent derived from the properties is applied exclusively for public charitable institutions;
    3. that the rent derived is exclusively applied for religious purposes.
  5. Meaning of "rent derived from such buildings": The court interpreted the expression in the proviso to mean the amount actually received by the trust after meeting legitimately incurred expenses in recovery and collection of rent and other incidental expenses. Consequently, legitimate expenditures by the trust in operating or preserving the trust property do not defeat a claim of exclusive application.
  6. Application to the facts: After examining the pleaded accounts and the nature of expenditures, and noting that the respondents did not assert that the residual balance after legitimate expenses was not applied exclusively for religious or charitable purposes, the court concluded that spending on the listed incidental items could not be held to demonstrate that the rent was not applied exclusively to the trust's objects.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is allowed and the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Property Tax, Sagar (annex. E) dated 2 July 1975, and of the Deputy Commissioner, Property Tax, Gwalior (annex. F) dated 30 August 1975, are quashed.

Immediate consequences for the parties:

  • The assessments and orders challenging the trust's claim to exemption under Section 6(f) (as set out in the impugned orders) are set aside.
  • The security amount deposited is to be refunded to the petitioner.
  • The court made no order as to costs of the petition.

The opinion offers a substantive statutory interpretation favorable to treating certain incidental expenditures as consistent with "exclusive" application of rental income for religious and charitable purposes, but it does not expressly state whether this ruling is intended to operate as a binding precedent beyond the case's facts.

Show all summary ...

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated July 2, 1975 (annex. E), of the Assistant Commissioner, Property Tax, Sagar, as well as the order dated August 30, 1975 (annex. F), of the Deputy Commissioner Property Tax, Gwalior.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a public trust duly registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act. This trust was created by one Shri Naraindasji Genda for religious and charitable purposes by a will dated 19th April, 1896, a copy whereof is filed as annex. A with the petition, Clauses 6 and 7 of which recite the purpose of the said trust to be religious and charitable. Besides a temple and dharamshala this trust also owns many houses which are let out to various tenants of the trust. According to the petitioner, the rental income derived from the houses of the trust is exclusively used and applied for religious and charitable purposes and also for charitable institutions.

3. The Property Tax Officer, Sagar (respondent No. 1), commenced proceedings under the provisions of the M. P. Nagariya Sthawar Sampatti Kar Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as " the Adhiniyam "), to assess and recover property tax on the houses of the trust situated within the Sagar Municipality. The petitioner resisted its liability on the ground that the rental income from the properties is being applied exclusively for religious and charitable purposes according to the directions of the trust. The petitioner filed detailed accounts of the rental income and expenditure showing also the items of expenditure incurred in realising the said rental income such as salaries of the trust employees, taxes, insurance premium, legal expenses and expenses incurred in the repairs and maintenance of the trust properties, etc.

4. Originally by order dated March 22, 1971, the Property Tax Officer, Sagar, had exempted all the buildings held by the trust from the liability for payment of property fax. But later on, by order dated January 25, 1975, of the Asst. Property Tax Commissioner, Jabalpur, the matter regarding the liability of the trust for assessment and payment of property tax was reopened. The Property Tax Officer held that the entire rental income from the trust houses is not exclusively applied for dharamshala, and he, therefore, exempted the dharamshala building alone and imposed tax on all the other houses for the year 1970-71. In appeal, the Asst. Property Tax Commissioner maintained that order. But, in second appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, Property Tax, Gwalior, by his order dated January 11, 1975 (annex. D), remanded the case to the Asst. Commissioner, Property Tax, Sagar, with directions that the accounts of the trust be examined and seen as to how the income was applied vis-a-vis the aims and objects of the trust.

5. On remand, the Asst. Commissioner examined the accounts of the trust for the years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 and held that the amounts spent by the trust were not spent exclusively for religious and charitable purposes. He, therefore, directed the Property Tax Officer to exempt only the temple and dharamshala and assess property tax in respect of all other buildings of the trust. In appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Gwalior, decided on August 30, 1975 (annex. F), the order was maintained, against which this petition has been filed to quash the same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, as shown in the Schedules of expenditure (annex. B) and (annexs. R-V to VII), the rental income derived from all the houses of the trust is not spent and applied on any item except the religious and charitable purposes and matters connected therewith, which is exempt from tax liability under Section 6(f) of the Adhiniyam. He further urged that the expenses incurred towards the taxes, insurance premium, litigation, salaries of employees and repairs and maintenance of the buildings of the trust are all items of expenditures directly and exclusively connected with and relating to the trust properties which constitute exclusive use and application of the rental income in religious and charitable purposes covered by the exemptions under Section 6(f) of the Adhiniyam. We find there is much force in this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Before we proceed to appreciate the aforesaid contention, we feel it necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 6(f) of the Adhiniyam, for better appreciation, which run as under :

" 6. The tax shall not be leviable in respect of the following properties, namely:.....

(f) buildings and land or portions thereof used exclusively for public worship or public charity such as mosques, temples, churches, dharamshalas, gurdwaras, hospitals, dispensaries, orphanages, alms-houses, drinking water fountains, infirmaries for the treatment and care of animals and public burials or burning grounds, or other places for the disposal of the dead :

Provided that the following buildings and lands or portions thereof shall not be deemed to be used exclusively for public worship or for public charity within the meaning of this section, namely :--

(i) buildings in, or lands on, which any trade or business is carried on unless the rent derived from such buildings or lands is applied exclusively to religious purposes or to public charitable institutions aforesaid; (ii) buildings or lands in respect of which rent is derived and such rent is not applied exclusively to religious purposes or public charitable institutions aforesaid."

7. At the very outset, it may be made clear that the words and expression " religious purposes ", " public worship ", or "public charity" are neither defined by the Adhiniyam nor by the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, and, therefore, there is a wide scope for interpreting these expressions, with reference to the context in which they are used in Section 6 of the Adhiniyam. Broadly speaking "religious purposes" under the Adhiniyam will include objects relating to the observance of rituals, ceremonies and propagation of the tenets of religion as also its advancement. Similarly, the term "charity" or "charitable purpose" will include relief to the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of public utility. In view of this, what we feel is that the income applied for fulfilment of a religious purpose or charitable object such as construction of a temple for public worship and construction of a dharamshala for public utility and convenience and maintenance of trust properties, payment of salaries of the employees of the trust engaged for realising the rent, etc., would all be items of expenditure directly relating to and connected with the main object of the trust within the scope and meaning of Section 6(f) of the Adhiniyam.

8. After a perusal of the provisions of Section 6(f), we find that in order to support a claim for exemption of tax under this section, the concurrence of the following main conditions is necessary:

(i) that buildings and land or portions thereof are exclusively used for public worship or public charity as enumerated in Section 6(f);

(ii) that the rent derived from the properties is applied exclusively, for public charitable institutions ; and

(iii) that the rent derived from the properties is exclusively applied for religious purposes.

9. The provisions of Clause (f) of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam unequivocally contemplate that a place of public worship and dharamshalas, etc., are exempt from payment of tax under the Adhiniyam. But, the provisions of that clause are subject to the conditions laid down in the provisos (i) and (ii) to the said Clause (f) of Section 6, according to which the buildings or lands covered by the said clause, shall not be deemed to be used exclusively for public worship or public charity within the meaning of Section 6(f) unless the rent derived from such buildings or land is applied exclusively to religious purposes or to public charitable institutions. With a view to claim exemption the petitioner contended that the houses are trust properties which is an admitted fact. The only question is whether the income derived from rent of those houses is exclusively applied for religious and charitable purposes or not, so as to bring it within the exemption clauses.

10. The terms " religious purposes " or " charitable purposes ", to our mind, are not to be so rigidly and narrowly construed as to exclude all other incidental expenses which are directly connected with the upkeep, maintenance and existence of the trust itself the objects of which are exclusively religious and charitable. In our opinion, the terms noted above, have not been used in a narrow and limited sense, but they have been used in a larger and wider sense so as to cover and include within its ambit all expenses directly connected with and ancillary to the maintenance, upkeep, safety and existence of the corpus of the trust. It is an admitted fact that the trust owns enormous house properties which are let out to various tenants. Naturally, proper and regular accounts have to be maintained and the properties have to be kept under proper repairs and maintenance for which the trust will have to employ some persons for this purpose as also. In recover And collect rent from the tenants. If need be, the trust will have to institute suit for recovery of rent and to seek evictions of the tenants, and thus to incur expenses in litigation also. If the trust is subject to any tax liability under some tax statute, it will be paid only out of the rental income and if the trustees feel it necessary to insure the trust properties or any part thereof against fire, theft or other damages, they will have to pay premium for the same. In our opinion, these are all incidental expenses relating to and connected with the main objects of the trust which are exclusively religious and charitable. If the trust property is not properly maintained and proper accounts are not kept, the very existence of the trust will be in jeopardy and its object and purpose will be lost. In this view of the matter, simply because a part of the rental income is spent in the maintenance, repairs, payment of salaries to employees, taxes and legal expenses, etc., it could not be said that the rent derived from the trust houses is not applied exclusively to religious purposes or charitable institutions.

11. It is not the case of the respondents nor it has been so contended in the return filed by the respondents that after meeting out all the aforesaid expenses, the remaining balance of the rental income derived from the trust houses, is not applied exclusively in religious purposes or charitable institutions, while it is specifically so stated by the petitioner in para. 8 of the petition. That being so, it could not be said that the rental income is not applied exclusively to the said purposes. In our opinion, the use of the expression, " the rent derived from such buildings " in the prov. (i) to Clause (f) of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, would mean the amount which is actually received by the trust after meeting out the expenses legitimately made in the recovery and collection of the rent as well as other incidental expenses.

12. In the result, the petition is allowed and the aforesaid impugned orders of the Asst. Commissioner, Property Tax, Sagar (annex. E), and the Deputy Commissioner, Property Tax, Gwalior (annex. F), could not be sustained in law and, therefore, the same are quashed. We, however, pass no orders as to costs of this petition. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner.