KAMALA GAIND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-1990-7-72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on July 12,1990

KAMALA GAIND Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. DELHI CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE [LAWS(DLH)-2002-11-7] [REFERRED 2.]
JAMSHETIJEE JEEJEEBHOY BARONET VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-6-43] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRADIPTA KUMAR JENA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
R B SHREERAM RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST VS. NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST [LAWS(BOM)-2011-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LTD VS. CHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER GOVT OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1997-2-81] [DISTINGUISHED]
DATTATRAYA SUKDEO CHITTE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-194] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. CHILDREN BOOK TRUST:MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-1992-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
LACHMAN DEO VS. DISTRICT JUDGE NAINITAL [LAWS(ALL)-2000-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
FATHER THOMAS PANJIKKARAN VS. CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(KER)-2003-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-161] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALA DEVI VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2002-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER [LAWS(UTN)-2004-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
ANMOLAK SINGH VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-1996-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. BHABAGRAHI PRASAD BEHERA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-11-81] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPOLIA SOCIAL SERVICE HOSPITAL VS. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2010-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT, SUBBALAKSHMI LAKSHMIPATHY FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-312] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST [LAWS(SC)-2018-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN INDIA MASONIC CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS. SOUTH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-349] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sharma, J. - (1.)The petitioner claims exemption under S. 115(4)(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 from the liability of paying general tax leviable under the said section.
(2.)The case of the petitioner is that it is a non-profit making registered society and its object is to organize and run schools in Delhi and elsewhere with a view to promote education and welfare. Accordingly it is running a school with the name of General Raj's School in Delhi in a building constructed for that purpose. A demand was made by the appropriate authority of the Municipal Corporation for payment of general tax under the Act and the exemption claimed by the petitioner was rejected. In this situation the petitioner moved the Delhi High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief. The writ petition was dismissed in limine by the following order:
"The only question that arises for consideration is whether the School run by the Society falls within the ambit of clause (4) of S. 115 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Reading this section it is obvious that exemption for levy for general tax could be granted if the Society which is running the school was a society for charitable purposes. Charitable purpose is defined in the explanation to clause (4) of S. 115. No doubt the School is imparting education but in order to qualify for exemption, it had to give education and medical relief. Admittedly fees are charged from students. Mere imparting of education cannot be called giving relief. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Dismissed."
The present civil appeal by special leave is directed against this judgment.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the language of S. 115(4)(a), quoted below, it is not correct to suggest that to qualify for exemption from the tax liability it is necessary for a society to offer medical relief:-
"(a) lands and buildings or portions of lands and buildings exclusively occupied and used for public worship or by a society or body for a charitable purpose:

Provided that such society or body is supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions, applies its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects and does not pay any dividend or bonus to its members.

Explanation.- "Charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education and medical relief but does not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious teaching;"
The argument is well founded. The test of 'charitable purpose' is satisfied by the proof of any of the three conditions, namely, relief of the poor, education, or medical relief. The fact that some fee is charged from the students is also not decisive inasmuch as the proviso indicates that the expenditure incurred in running the society may be supported either wholly or in part by voluntary contributions. Besides, the explanation is in terms inclusive ,land not exhaustive. The impugned judgment must, therefore, be held to be erroneous.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.