JUDGMENT : Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P12 Government Order. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is a convent of Franciscan Clarist Congregation. A new building was constructed having an area of 2432.16 sq. metres. Pursuant to Ext.P4 report, notice was issued and the petitioner approached the Village Officer and submitted documents and informed him that the building constructed by the convent is a building built for residence of nuns and claimed exemption from the provisions of Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Petitioner relies on Exts.P5 and P8 reports of the Village Officer submitted before the assessing authority wherein it is specifically stated that the building is used for residence of nuns and that there is a chapel as well as a prayer room inside the said building. In spite of all these the building was assessed as per Ext.P9. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached the Government by filing Ext.P11 representation and the same was rejected by Ext.P12. One of the reasons stated in Ext.P12 to reject the claim of the petitioner is that few of the residents who are nuns are working as nurses in Bishop Alappat Mission Hospital and the stand taken by the Government is that exemption can be claimed only if the building is principally used for religious purposes or the major portion of the building is permanently used for adoration or other religious purposes. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent reiterating the stand taken in Ext.P12 and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for exemption from payment of building tax. 4. Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act exempted buildings used principally for religious, charitable or educational purposes from the provisions of the said Act. In Exts.P5 and P8 reports submitted by the Village Officer it is clearly stated that the building is used only for the residence of the nuns and that there is a chapel as well as a prayer room and the building is for the use of nuns in the convent. The Government or the assessing authority has no case that any of the property has been let out for a fee or anyone is residing there other than the nuns attached to the Congregation. The Government or the assessing authority has no case that any of the property has been let out for a fee or anyone is residing there other than the nuns attached to the Congregation. There is also no case that any portion of the building is used for commercial purpose. This Court had occasion to consider a similar issue in Mother Superior v. Government of Kerala, 2008 (1) KLT 446 wherein in paragraph 8 it is held as follows: “8. If the activities that are going on in the convent are predominantly religious, then, normally, buildings of the convent used for the said purpose should also qualify for exemption. Of course, if any particular building is used for any commercial activity, such buildings could be segregated. It is not in dispute that a chapel is used for religious purposes. Attached to that, there may be a room for the Chaplain for taking rest etc. Can that room be segregated and said that it is not used for religious purposes. We feel that the answer should be in the negative. If the buildings of convents are generally used for religious purposes and one of the buildings is used for residence of inmates there, it shall also be treated as one, used for religious purposes. Any interpretation to the contrary will be irrational. So, we are of the view that the buildings, used for the residence of the nuns in a convent, is principally used for religious purposes and therefore, should also qualify for exemption. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J., in Writ Petition (C) No. 27250/06. The judgment in WA 2424/05 deals with the case of a boarding and lodging house for students run by a convent where rooms are let out collecting a fee. If the convent is running a commercial or industrial unit, the building housing that establishment will not qualify for exemption. That principle cannot be applied in the case of the building used for accommodating nuns in the convent. The decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Government Pleader also does not have any application to the facts of this case. The point considered therein was whether the building used for accommodating a school can be treated as a building used for charitable purpose or religious activities. The decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Government Pleader also does not have any application to the facts of this case. The point considered therein was whether the building used for accommodating a school can be treated as a building used for charitable purpose or religious activities. The principle stated therein does not have any application to the facts of this case. ” (underline supplied) In the said judgment this Court has specifically held that if the activities that are going on in the convent are predominantly religious, then normally the buildings of the convent used for such purpose shall qualify for exemption and if any particular building is used for any commercial activity such building could be segregated. It is further held that the building which is essentially used for accommodating nuns in the convent will qualify for exemption from the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Though the said judgment was taken up in appeal by the State, the Apex Court in Government of Kerala and another v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent, 2021 (2) KHC 188 dismissed the appeals filed by the State. Paragraphs 12 and 24 of the said judgment read as follows: “12. A reading of the provision would show that the object for exempting buildings which are used principally for religious, charitable or educational purposes would be for core religious, charitable or educational activity as well as purposes directly connected with religious activity. One example will suffice to show the difference between a purpose that is directly connected with religious or educational activity and a purpose which is only indirectly connected with such activity. Take a case where, unlike the facts in Civil Appeal No. 202 of 2012, nuns are not residing in a building next to a convent so that they may walk over to the convent for religious instruction. Take a case where the neighbouring building to the convent is let out on rent to any member of the public, and the rent is then utilised only for core religious activity. Can it be said that the letting out at market rent would be connected with religious activity because the rental that is received is ploughed back only into religious activity? Letting out a building for a commercial purpose would lose any rational connection with religious activity. Can it be said that the letting out at market rent would be connected with religious activity because the rental that is received is ploughed back only into religious activity? Letting out a building for a commercial purpose would lose any rational connection with religious activity. The indirect connection with religious activity being the profits which are ploughed back into religious activity would obviously not suffice to exempt such a building. But if on the other hand, nuns are living in a neighbouring building to a convent only so that they may receive religious instruction there, or if students are living in a hostel close to the school or college in which they are imparted instruction, it is obvious that the purpose of such residence is not to earn profit but residence that is integrally connected with religious or educational activity. xxxx xxxx xxxx 24. This being the case, it is obvious that the beneficial purpose of the exemption contained in S.3(1)(b) must be given full effect to, the line of authority being applicable to the facts of these cases being the line of authority which deals with beneficial exemptions as opposed to exemptions generally in tax Statutes. This being the case, a literal formalistic interpretation of the Statute at hand is to be eschewed. We must first ask ourselves what is the object sought to be achieved by the provision, and construe the Statute in accord with such object. And on the assumption that any ambiguity arises in such construction, such ambiguity must be in favour of that which is exempted. Consequently, for the reasons given by us, we agree with the conclusions reached by the impugned judgments of the Division Bench and the Full Bench. ” (underline supplied) Admittedly there is no case for the Government that the building is used for any other purposes other than for residence of the nuns of the Congregation. Exts.P5 and P8 reports also state that the building has been used only for the residence of the nuns. Further Ext.P8 report revealed that there is a chapel as well as a prayer hall attached to the building. The Government has also no case that any other persons other than nuns are residing there on payment of a fixed fee or used for any commercial purpose. Further Ext.P8 report revealed that there is a chapel as well as a prayer hall attached to the building. The Government has also no case that any other persons other than nuns are residing there on payment of a fixed fee or used for any commercial purpose. Since the said convent is used only for the purpose of the residence of the nuns attached to the Congregation, the reason for rejecting the claim for exemption that the nuns residing in the said convent are employed in the nearby hospital cannot be accepted. Accordingly Ext.P12 order is set aside. Writ petition is allowed as above.