Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Plea Against ₹19.75 Lakh Property Tax Demand On Loyola School

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Madhya Pradesh Jesuits challenging property tax demand notices of around Rs. 19.75 lakh raised against Loyola Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur.

Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that the school could not claim property tax exemption based on a Section 12A registration certificate, which is required for eligible educational institutions to claim the exemption. The certificate, however, was issued in favour of “The President, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, Kunkuri P.O., Raigarh Distt.

Madhya Pradesh Jesuits is a charitable trust that established Loyola Higher Secondary School at Rajiv Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, in 2005. It challenged demand notices dated August 6, 2021, and September 2, 2021, relating to property tax for the financial year 2020-21.

The trust claimed that the institution was a charitable and minority educational institution. It argued that it was entitled to property tax exemption under Section 136(c) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961.

The Municipal Corporation opposed the petition. It argued that the certificate was issued in favour of the President, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, Kunkuri, and not the Bilaspur institution.

The court noted that Section 136(c) provides complete property tax exemption to specified institutions. This includes educational institutions registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.

The court further observed that in the absence of such registration, an educational institution may be given a rebate of up to 50% of the property tax.

The court noted that despite repeated reminders, the petitioner failed to produce a Section 12A registration certificate applicable to the Bilaspur institution.

The certificate later produced with the rejoinder was issued in favour of “The President, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, Kunkuri P.O., Raigarh Distt.”

The Court held that the two institutions were not one and the same. It therefore held that the Bilaspur school could not claim the benefit of the registration certificate.

“In view of the discussion made herein-above, in my opinion, the two institutions are not one and the same and the petitionerinstitution situated at Seepat Road, Bilaspur cannot take benefit of registration certificate annexed along with the rejoinder. Therefore, the demand notice appears to be reasonable and no case is made out for interference.,” the court held.

The court found the property tax demand to be reasonable. It held that no case was made out for interference and dismissed the writ petition.

For Petitioner: Advocate Dr. Veena Nair,

For Respondent: Advocate Ajay Kumarani, P.L. and Mr. Sandeep Dubey,