Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The respondents, co‑owners of a 42‑room residential building in Bangalore, leased the property to a company which sub‑let it as a hostel for students and working professionals. The respondents sought an advance ruling that the rent received was exempt from GST under Entry 13 of Notification 9/2017, …
M/s Lisie Medical Institutions appealed against the State of Kerala challenging the interpretation of Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The issue was whether the Explanation to the provision, which states that ‘charitable purpose’ includes relief of the poor and free medical …
The Supreme Court examined whether residential accommodations for nuns and hostel buildings for students qualify for exemption from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The State argued that such buildings are merely residential and not used principally for …
M/s. Lisie Medical Institutions, a charitable trust running a hospital, sought exemption from building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, claiming its premises were used for charitable purposes. The High Court, relying on S.H. Medical Centre Hospital v. State of Kerala, rejected the …
The Kerala Tahsildar levied a luxury tax on a three‑storey building comprising 13 residential apartments by aggregating the plinth area of all apartments, invoking Section SA of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The Kerala High Court, on a single‑judge decision, held that tax should be levied only …
The appellant, M. Ahamedkuty Haji, constructed a shopping complex in 1987 and was assessed building tax by the assessing authority under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 on 15‑Feb‑1988. After the local authority later fixed the capital value, the assessing authority invoked Section …
The Supreme Court examined the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, which imposed a non‑recurring tax on buildings based on a "capital value" calculated as sixteen times the building's annual value. The petitioners challenged the Act on four grounds: (1) it was beyond the State's legislative competence …
