Ramakrishna Mission v Comptroller of Property Tax and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Teong Qwee JC
• Judgment Date: 07 November 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 290
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1093 of
• Date: 07 November 1997
• Year: 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Liew Teck Huat and Ravindra Samuel (Niru & Co)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 290
• Defendant Counsel: S Sharma, Andy Wong and David Lim (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, Law Division)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Property tax,s 6(5) Property Tax Act (Cap 254),Monks in transit using two guest rooms,The plaintiff must show that the whole of the property is exclusively used for charitable purposes,Exemption,Revenue Law,Whether such use where occupiers derive benefit from residing in building is for charitable purpose or for purposes conducive to social development in Singapore or for any other qualifying purpose

Judgment:

LIM TEONG QWEE JC

In this action commenced by originating summons the plaintiff (Mission) seeks: (a). the determination of the question whether the Valuation Review Board constituted under s 23 of the Property Tax Act (Cap 254) (the Act) has jurisdiction to determine whether exemptions under s 6(5) of the Act apply;

(b). if the Valuation Review Board has this jurisdiction then an order that the Valuation Review Board determine whether the Mission is entitled to an exemption under s 6(5) of the Act;

(c). if the Valuation Review Board has no such jurisdiction, an order that the Mission is entitled to an exemption under s 6(5) of the Act, or alternatively, that this matter be set down for trial to determine this issue and that all proceedings before the Valuation Review Board be stayed in the interim; and

(d). other reliefs.

On 7 December 1996 I gave judgment. The answer to the question in para (a) was `No` and para (b) was not applicable. I made no order on para (c).

2.The Mission applied for further argument in respect of para (c) of the reliefs and for directions for evidence by affidavit. I recalled the order I made on para (c) and on 1 July 1997 I heard counsel and considered the further evidence. I made no order and the Mission has appealed against this part of the orders I made on the originating summons.

3.Section 6 of the Act provides for the imposition of property tax and it is payable upon the annual value of all houses, buildings, lands and tenements whatsoever included in the valuation list. Section 6(5) provides:

All buildings or parts of buildings used exclusively -

(c) for charitable purposes; and

(d) for purposes conducive to social development in Singapore,

shall be exempted from payment of the tax.

4.The Mission is a charity registered under the Charities Act (Cap 37, 1995 Ed). It is the owner of the property at 179 Bartley Rd which comprises a temple, a boys` home, a cultural centre, a kindergarten and other ancillary buildings and parts of buildings. The cultural centre houses a library and reading room, meeting rooms, an administrative office, two guest rooms and other facilities. There is also a counselling centre and a homeopathy centre there. These proceedings concern only the two guest rooms. I refer to them as `guest rooms` for purposes of identification only and not by way of characterisation of the use for which they have been designed or constructed or to which they have been put.

5.Swami Jagadatmananda is the president of the Mission. He said that the Ramakrishna Mission was established in 1886 and has grown into a worldwide organisation with 130 centres. It has hospitals, educational institutions, orphanages and libraries. It caters to the spritual, educational, social and cultural needs of society as a whole. The plaintiff Mission was established in Singapore in 1928 and is actively involved in educational, cultural and social work. He said:

as the Mission is an international one with co-operation of centres in various countries, visiting monks of senior rank visit Singapore from time to time to deliver lectures and spiritual discourses.

Simply put, we share our wisdom and knowledge. It is these visiting monks of senior rank who stay in these two rooms that we have been denied property tax exemption.

All senior monks who stayed in the two rooms were here doing the charitable work of the Mission. They were not here on holiday as this would be inimical to the fundamental tenets of our faith.

6.Mr Liew referred to Commissioner of Valuation v The Very Rev Patrick O`Connell [1906] 2 IR 479 where Palles CB said at p 485:

I desire to be distinctly understood as not deciding that if the main purpose for which

...