K K KARUNAKARAN NAIR Vs. TAHSILDAR CHANGANACHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has constructed a community hall having a plinth area of 415.25 sq. meters at Nedumkunnam. Construction of the same was completed in the year 1994 as can be seen from the certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Nedumkunnam Panchayat (Special Grade). Petitioner did not file a return as required under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter) referred to as 'the Act'). However, the assessing authority assessed the building and demanded tax by Ext. P2 demand notice dated 30.9.1996. Since the building was completed and taxable event for charging building tax as per S.5(1) of the Act was after 10.2.1992 assessment was made on the basis of plinth area at the rate mentioned in the schedule existing on the date of taxable event, that is, completion of the construction of the building. He paid the same. Later, Ext. P3 was issued under S.15(3) of the Act. Ext. P3 reads as follows:

(2.) In the counter affidavit it is stated that Government has revised the rate of tax in the schedule with effect from 29.7.1996. But, Ext. P2 assessment was made only on 20.11.1997 after the revision of the schedule and, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record of Ext. P2 as in Ext. P2 assessment, rate of tax applied is the rate existing on the date of taxable event but it would have been based on the rate existing on the date of assessment. Therefore, Ext. P3 rectifying the error is valid. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that under S.5(1) of the Act the building which is completed on or after the appointed day should be charged for tax on the basis of plinth area at the rate specified in the schedule. It was interpreted by the assessing authorities that the schedule that is applicable is the one existing on the date of assessment and not on the date of taxable event.

(3.) I have already held in O. P. No. 1631 of 1999 that S.5(2) is applicable only for the building constructed before the appointed day, but, assessment on such building was not completed and pending after the appointed day, that is, 10.2.1992 by any reason including the reason of pendency of appeal or revision. In this case, the building was admittedly completed after 10.2.1992, the appointed day and, therefore, there is no change in the method of assessment. Hence, S.5(2) is not applicable in this case.