Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The object of the Society inter alia is to erect and maintain a town hall to be styled the ‘Victoria Edward Hall’ in the city of Madurai as a permanent memorial of coronation of the King Emperor Edward II as well as in memory of late Queen Empress Victoria, and also to maintain and improve for the benefit of the public, a library called Victoria Edward Library. It owns two pieces of land in T. S. No. 19/1 and T. S. 19/2 aggregate extent being 27-2-174 grounds. 2. After the extension of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, hereinafter called the Act, to Municipal areas including the city of Madurai with effect from 1st July 1971, proceedings were initiated under the said Act for the assessment of the said lands owned by the petitioner to urban land tax. As soon as the notice was received from the assessing authority on 7th April 1973, the petitioner, by its letter dated 27th January 1973, claimed that it is entitled to exemption under S. 29 (a) of the Act. But, the assessing authority felt that the petitioner may not be entitled to exemption under S. 29(h). The petitioner then claimed that the lands owned by it cannot come under the purview of the Act in view of S. 29(k), as it is a philanthropic institution. The assessing authority called for certain details from the petitioner for submitting proposals for exemption to the Government under S. 29(k), and the petitioner furnished the required particulars. However, the assessing authority proceeded to finalise the assessment by an order, dated 18th May 1974 fixing the value of the land at (sic) Rs. 81,600 per ground. Thereafter, he issued a demand for a sum of Rs. 17,876-90 for the fasli 1381. The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment to the Special Tribunal for Urban Land Tax, Madurai. 3. At the same time, the petitioner also filed an independent application to the State Government on 17 July 1974, setting out the objects for which the institution was founded and the user to which the lands owned by it having been put to, and claiming that the institution is a philanthropic institution coming under S. 29(k) of the Act. 3. At the same time, the petitioner also filed an independent application to the State Government on 17 July 1974, setting out the objects for which the institution was founded and the user to which the lands owned by it having been put to, and claiming that the institution is a philanthropic institution coming under S. 29(k) of the Act. In the said petition, the petitioner had also stated that the assessment has been made for the earlier fasli 1381, that the amount of the tax imposed has been remitted into the treasury with considerable strain on its resources, and that, therefore, the Government may direct the refund of the tax already collected from it for that fasli. On the said petition, reports were called for from the assessing authorities as well as from the Board of Revenue. On the reports made by the assessing authority and on the recommendation made by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner-institution has been declared as a philanthropic institution by a Notification in G. O. Ms. No. 2063, Revenue Dept., dated 29th September 1975. The said notification is in these terms:— Notification “In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (k) of S. 29 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 1966), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby specifies the Victoria Edward Hall, Madurai, as a philanthropic institution for the purpose of the said section.” It is only after the issuance of the above notification, the appeal filed before the Special Tribunal came up for hearing. The petitioner relied on the Government notification in support of its contention that the lands owned by it will not come under the purview of the Act. The Tribunal, however, took the view that the specification that the petitioner is a philanthropic institution made by the Government on 29th September 1975 will not be retrospective, and therefore, the benefit of the said notification cannot be claimed for the period for fasli 1381. In this view, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the assessment order for fasli 1381 on merits, and ultimately sustained the same. In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the view taken by the Special Tribunal and contends that the notification once issued will apply from the date of the commencement of the fasli year 1381 when the amended Act of 1971 came into force. 4. Mr. In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the view taken by the Special Tribunal and contends that the notification once issued will apply from the date of the commencement of the fasli year 1381 when the amended Act of 1971 came into force. 4. Mr. V. K. T. Chari, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly submits that the principles applicable to the construction of interpretation of exemption notifications will not apply to a notification issued under S. 29(k) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act which is merely declaratory in nature and that the notification in question being declaratory that the petitioner institution is a philanthropic institution, it should be taken to be for the purpose of this Act, i.e., to exempt the lands possessed by the petitioner institution from the purview of the Act from its inception. The learned counsel also points out that in any event the notification issued by the Government should be construed with reference to the application filed by the petitioner at whose instance the notification has been issued, and that a perusal of the said application would clearly indicate that the petitioner sought the declaration not only for the future but also for fasli 1381 for which assessment has been already made and the refund of the tax paid thereunder has been prayed for in the petition. 5. In this case, the notification, on the face of it, does not say from which date the declaration will be effective. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the declaration that the petitioner is a philanthropic institution is given for the purpose of the Act, it will have to be effective from the date of commencement of the amending Act of 1971. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that the notification declaring the petitioner to be a philanthropic, institution will take effect only from the date of the notification and not from any anterior date. 6. On a due consideration of the matter, I am of the view that there should be a distinction between the exemption notification and a notification which is merely declaratory. Under S. 29(k) once a declaration is given, the lands owned by the petitioner will not come under the purview of the Act. 6. On a due consideration of the matter, I am of the view that there should be a distinction between the exemption notification and a notification which is merely declaratory. Under S. 29(k) once a declaration is given, the lands owned by the petitioner will not come under the purview of the Act. The notification, as such, does not grant the exemption, and the exemption is granted by the statute as a result of the declaration given by the Government that the petitioner institution is a philanthropic institution. Thus, the declaration is as regards the nature of the institution, and the nature and object of the institution does not differ or change from year to year. Apart from this, the notification issued by the Government declaring the petitioner as a philanthropic institution was on a petition filed by the petitioner on 17th July 1974. Since the notification is silent as to when it will become effective, the application filed by the petitioner has to be looked into. There the petitioner has claimed that the institution may be declared as a philanthropic institution under S. 29(k) of the Act and that the refund of the tax paid for the previous fasli 1381 may also be ordered. If the Government while granting declaration specifying the institution as a philanthropic institution, wanted to limit its applieation to any particular period, it would have done so specifically when the petitioners request was to have the benefit of the specification under S. 29(k) of the Act for the fasli year 1381 also. Therefore, the specification that the institution is a philanthropic institution under S. 29(k) made by the Government has to be treated as being applicable from the date of the commencement of the amending Act of 1971, i.e., fasli year 1381. In this view, the order of the Special Tribunal in this case has to be quashed. 7. The learned Government Pleader points out that notwithstanding the specification made by the Government in the said notification that the petitioner institution is a philanthropic institution, the lands owned by the institution can be brought in for the assessment if the lands are not vacant but have been built up and fetching income in view of the amended S. 29(k). S. 29(k) has been amended by Tamil Nadu Act 49 of 1.75, and before its amendment all the urban land, owned by the institution were exempted. S. 29(k) has been amended by Tamil Nadu Act 49 of 1.75, and before its amendment all the urban land, owned by the institution were exempted. Therefore, for the assessment year, which is fasli 1381, amended S. 29 will not apply. The question whether under S. 29, as amended, the lands owned by the petitioner institution can be brought to tax is a matter which has to be considered for the year subsequent to 1975, and therefore, it is unnecessary to deal with that question at this stage. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.