MADHYA PRADESH JESUITS vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

PDF · subscribers
WPT/12/2022HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01002587202223 July 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner-institution, Loyola Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur, is not entitled to property tax exemption under Section 136(c) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961. The Court found that the Section 12A Income Tax registration certificate produced by the petitioner was issued in favor of 'The President, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, Kunkuri P.O., Raigarh Distt.' and not for the petitioner-institution located at Rajiv Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur. The Court reasoned that the two institutions are not the same, and thus, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the annexed registration certificate. Consequently, the demand notices issued by the Municipal Corporation appear reasonable, and no grounds for interference were made out. The writ petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, runs Loyola Higher Secondary School in Bilaspur. They received a property tax demand notice dated 06/08/2021 and 02/09/2021 from the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (Respondent No. 2), for Rs. 19,75,745 for the financial year 2020-21. The petitioner claims exemption from property tax under Section 136(c) and (e) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961, asserting they are a charitable and minority institution registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with a certificate issued on 10.7.1974. The respondents contended that the Section 12A registration certificate was issued to 'The President, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, Kunkuri P.O., Raigarh Distt.' and not to the petitioner-institution in Bilaspur, making the demand notices valid.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner-institution, Loyola Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur, is entitled to exemption from property tax under Section 136(c) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961, based on a Section 12A registration under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are a charitable and minority institution registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with a certificate issued on 10.7.1974, entitling them to property tax exemption as per Section 136(c) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961. They relied on their Section 12A certificate. Revenue's Contention: The respondents argued that the Section 12A registration certificate was issued to a different entity, 'The President, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, Kunkuri P.O., Raigarh Distt.', and not to the petitioner-institution in Bilaspur. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the exemption, and the demand notices were rightly issued.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 136,Section 135,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CGHC010025872022

2026:CGHC:31682

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 12 of 2022  Madhya Pradesh Jesuits Through Its Secretary/ Principal, Loyala Higher Secondary School, Rajiv Vihar, Seepat Road, Secl, Post- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Development And Administration Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner, Zone No. 7, Municipal Corporation, Raj Kishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ajay Kumarani, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 24.7.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 Call for the records from the Municipal Corporation for its kind perusal. 10.2 Quash and set aside the demand notice dated 06/08/2021 & 02/09/2021 (P/1) raised by the

2 Respondent Municipal Corporation for payment of property tax amounting to tune of Rs. 19,75,745. 10.3. This Hon'ble may be pleased to grant cost and expenses of the present petition and any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2) Facts of the present case are that Madhya Pradesh Jesuits is a charitable trust bearing Registration No. 77-1959-60, which established Loyola Higher Secondary School at Rajiv Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur in the year 2005. It is pleaded that petitioner-institution is entitled for exemption from property tax according to the provisions of Section 136 (c) and (e) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1961’] and the respondent No. 2 has issued demand notice for payment of property tax to the tune of Rs.19,75,742/- for the financial year 2020-21 on 2.9.2021. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a charitable and minority institution registered under Section 12(A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Income Tax Act’] and certificate in this regard was issued in its favor on 10.7.1974 by O/o Income Tax Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. She further submits that since the petitioner-institution is in possession of the aforestated certificate which provides exemption from the payment of property tax, the impugned demand notices issued by the respondent No. 2 are bad in law. She prays to allow this writ petition.

3 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit that the registration certificate under Section 12 (A) of Income Tax Act was issued in favor of The President, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, Kunkuri P.O., Raigarh Distt. and no such certificate has been issued in favor of petitioner-institution situated at Rajiv Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur. They further submit that since the petitioner-institution is not registered u/s 12(A) of Income Tax Act, therefore respondent No. 2 rightly issued demand notices and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard. 6) The Sub-section (C) of Section 136 of Act of 1961 reads as under :- 136. Exemptions.- The property tax levied under section 135 shall not be leviable in respect of the following properties, namely :- (a) **** (I) *** (ii) *** (iii) *** (b) **** (c) educational institution of Government of India, State Government, Municipal Corporations, registered Charitable Trusts, educational institutions registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, shall be wholly exempted and other educational institutions may be given a rebate of upto fifty percent of the property tax as assessed by the Corporation in accordance with norms that may be prescribed by the State Government;

4 Bare reading of the above-quoted provision would makes it clear that exemption of property tax can be extended to an educational institution having registration u/s 12(A) of Income Tax Act and in absence of the same, the institution may be given a rebate of up to 50% of property tax. 7) In the present case, respondent No. 2 issued demand notice against the petitioner-institution situated at Rajiv Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur to the tune of Rs.19,75,745/- and despite repeated reminders, petitioner failed to submit registration certificate u/s 12(A) of Income Tax Act. Although, petitioner has annexed a certificate along with rejoinder but it appears that same is a registration certificate issued in favor of “The President, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, Kunkuri P.O., Raigarh Distt.” dated 10.7.1974. 8) In view of the discussion made herein-above, in my opinion, the two institutions are not one and the same and the petitioner- institution 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. 9) Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.25 10:49:55 +0530

More judgments on Section 135

All 205 judgments and leading authorities on Section 135 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →