GEORGE MATHAI Vs. TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants/petitioners question the order of rectification passed by Ext. P5 regarding building tax under S.15 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (in short 'The Act'). Petitioners along with two others purchased the property by four separate registered sale deeds and constructed a single building with different portions, partitioned between themselves for convenient sake and claimed for separate assessment under the Act. Assessments were made in 1987. The orders of assessment were given and petitioners/appellants paid the amount also. Thereafter, on 8.5.1989 and 19.5.1989 notices were issued for rectification under S.15 of the Act and finally by Ext. P5 dated 4.8.1994 order of rectification was made after seven years of the original assessment. According to the appellants, the order of rectification is time barred in view of the decision in George v. Tahsildar ( 1992 (2) KLT 690 ). It is also submitted that rectification order treating the building as single one goes to the basis of the matter and it will amount to reassessment and it is not merely a rectification. The appellants had relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Kurian George v. Tahsildar ( 1995 (2) KLT 457 ).

(2.) First we may go through the first contention raised by the appellants regarding question of limitation. S.15 of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) The learned Government Pleader submits that since the notice of rectification was issued within three years, the question of limitation will not be applicable here. Learned Government Pleader relied on the Division Bench decision in T. D. Davis v. State of Kerala (1997 KLJ Tax Cases 112). There the Division Bench was considering S.19 of the Sales Tax Act wherein it is provided that when an assessee escaped tax, the assessing authority can within five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates can proceed to redetermine the tax payable. On the basis of the words used in the section, this Court held that proceedings need only be started within five years. Here the wording is entirely different. Here it has been very clearly stated that authority 'may rectify' any mistake apparent on the record within three years from the date of order and shall rectify any such mistake within such period if it is brought to the notice and mere notice or starting of proceedings is not enough.