Charitable property tax exemption upheld where research premises served public purposes and voluntary support satisfied the statutory proviso.

Premises used exclusively for research, education and allied medical work were treated as being used for a charitable purpose, so the exemption under Section 115(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was available. The court also treated government grants-in-aid and project-linked donations as voluntary contributions of appreciable substance, and noted that the institution applied income to its objects without distributing profits, dividends or bonus, satisfying the proviso to Section 115(4). The existence of an alternative appellate remedy was held not to bar writ relief, as it is a matter of discretion rather than jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant's premises were used exclusively for a charitable purpose so as to qualify for exemption from general tax under Section 115(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957; (ii) whether the appellant was supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions within the meaning of the proviso to Section 115(4); (iii) whether the availability of an appellate remedy justified refusal of relief in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether the appellant's premises were used exclusively for a charitable purpose so as to qualify for exemption from general tax under Section 115(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

Analysis: The provision exempts lands and buildings exclusively occupied and used by a society or body for a charitable purpose, subject to the proviso. The objects of the appellant institute were research, education and allied medical work, including immunology, vaccines and related scientific activity. The reasoning treated such medical research and education as charitable in character and found that the premises were occupied and used for that purpose.

Conclusion: The appellant's premises were held to be used exclusively for charitable purposes, and this requirement of Section 115(4) was satisfied in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant was supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions within the meaning of the proviso to Section 115(4).

Analysis: The proviso requires support wholly or in part by voluntary contributions, application of income towards the objects, and no distribution of dividend or bonus. The institute received grants-in-aid from the Government of India and donations from other institutions. The grants were treated as voluntary in nature because they were discretionary and could be withdrawn, and the other donations were directed to research projects whose results served the public good. The institution also did not distribute profits, dividends or bonus to members. The word "part" was treated as requiring an appreciable, not insignificant, degree of voluntary support.

Conclusion: The support received by the appellant was held to constitute voluntary contributions within the meaning of Section 115(4), and the proviso was satisfied in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the availability of an appellate remedy justified refusal of relief in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy was treated as a rule of discretion and not a bar of jurisdiction. As the matters had remained pending for a long time, the Court declined to deny relief merely because the appellant had not pursued the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The writ relief was not refused on the ground of alternative remedy, and the objection was rejected in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to exemption from property tax for the premises exclusively used for research and allied charitable activities, and the assessing authority was required to act accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Premises exclusively occupied and used for charitable purposes qualify for exemption where the society is supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions of appreciable substance, applies its income to its objects, and makes no distribution of profits to members; the availability of an alternative remedy does not preclude writ relief where the Court chooses to exercise discretion.

---