Sec. 2 (e) - Flats - Assessment -Part of the building  if independently, can be used with separate door and with independent access and separately owned, it can be assessed separately even without the aid of explanation especially considering the definition of "owner" and assessment is in respect of the owner of the building. Flats and multi-storied buildings are jointly made by co-owners considering the exorbitant cost and reducing the expenses. However if the building is not coming under the explanation of the said section, such buildings or independent self-sufficient portion of the building cannot claim assessment as a separate building unless the owner has got ownership in separate definite portion of the building which has got independent access. In other words, if it is jointly owned by several persons, it cannot be stated that it is a separate building and each party should be  owned by separate person for claiming separate assessment unless one will come under the explanation. 1994(1) KLT 790 & 1995(2) KLT 457 affirmed. [Lissty Lyju and another vs. Tahasildar and others. 2000 (3) KLT 497 , Dated 18th August, 2000. J.B.Koshy (J) & M.Ramachandran (J)]

Secs.2(1), 5(3) & 5(5) -- Part of the building used for residential purpose and other part used as godown by the owner of the building for himself- The entire building cannot be assessed as "other building" -- The portion exclusively used for residential purpose can be assessed as "residential building" and that portion used as godown can be assessed as "other building" .[C.V.Sukumaran Vs.Tahsildar &Ors. 1999 (1) KLJ 1014 J.B.Koshy J.]

Sec.3 -- If there is any dispute regarding the claim of exemption from assessment of the building tax the Tahsildar has to refer the dispute to the Government.Tahsildar has no power to assess the tax before obtaining a decision from the Government regarding the exemption. [Achamma Chacko Vs.Tahsildar & Anr 1999(1) KLJ 37 = 1999(1)KLT 744 . D.Sreedevi J.]

Sec.3(1) & Sec.2(e) -- Exemption from assessment- Building owned by a Government Company cannot be regarded as a building owned by the Government of India and it is having separate personality and it cannot have the benefit under Sec.3(1)(a). Government Company is different from Government . [Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs.State of Kerala 1999(1) KLJ 847 = 1999(1) KLT 782. J.B.Koshy J.]

Sec.3(1)(2) -- Building Tax Exemption to Educational Institutions-- Exemption claimed by a Parallel College which was not recognised --For claiming exemption, recognition by the Govt. is not mandatory -- Building used as an Educational Institution is exempted from paying building tax. [Principal, St.Thomas College Vs.State of Kerala 1999(1) KLJ 582 = 1999(1) KLT 815 J.B.Koshy J.]

Sec. 3(2) - When a claim is made before the assessing authority that the building is liable to get exemption under Sec. 3(1)(b), the assessing authority should refer the matter to the Government. Assessing authority cannot go ahead with the assessment. Only the Government has can look into the same. [ Victory Paper and Board (India)n Ltd vs.R.D.O. 2000(2) KLT SN.83.P.78. Dr.Justice.AR.Lakshmanan & D.Sreedevi (J&J) ]

Sec.3(3) -- Judicial review -- Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts -- The High Court has the power under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the decision of the Govt. in building tax matters -- Power of judicial review is not taken away by the provisions.It only excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts. [Principal St.Thomas College Vs.State of Kerala & Anr. 1999(1) KLJ 582 J.B.Koshy ]

Sec. 5 - Assessment should be based on the rate as fixed on the date of completion of the building. This section has no application in respect of building constructed after the appointed day. Rate of tax is not a matter where power of rectification can be made. [Shoukathali vs. Tahasildar. 2000(2) KLT 512. J.B.Koshy (J)]

Sec. 5 - Applicable only for the buildings constructed before the appointed day, but assessment was not completed and pending after the appointed day. Buildings which are constructed after the appointed day, tax should be assessed on the basis of the schedule existing on the date of completion of the building. By using the power of rectification one cannot make a reassessment. [ Karunakaran Nair vs. Tahasildar. 2000 (2) KLT 705. J.B.Koshy (J)]

Sec. 5 - Applicable only regarding buildings constructed before the appointed day. Rate of tax for assessment should be based on the schedule as existing on the date of taxable event and not on the date of assessment. [Mohmood vs. Tahasildar . 2000 (2) KLT 820. J.B.Koshy (J)]

Sec. 15 - Rectification of mistakes - Must be done within three years. Mere issuance of notice within three year is not sufficient  The usage of the words "may rectify"  states that any mistake apparent on the face of the record shall be rectified within three years from the date of the 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. [George Mathai and another vs The Tahasildar.AIR 2001 Ker 33. J.B.Koshy & M.Ramachandran (J&J)]

 Sec. 15 - Power to pass orders for rectification of mistakes when can be exercised -Insufficient of valuation is not a ground for re-opening The fact that in the opinion of a successor in the seat of the assessing authority or for that matter even an audit officer a portion of the building would attract higher rent and on that basis warrants fixation on higher capital value is not at all a ground contemplated under this section. [C.V.Lakshmanan vs The Tahasildar. O.P.No. 12432 of 1995. Dated 10th December, 2001. M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]

Sec.15 -- Rectification of mistakes --Mistake in the assessment order can bee rectified only by the same officer --A Revisional authority cannot rectify mistake ,in the order of the Appellate authority under Sec.15. [N.V.Joseph Vs.District Collector & Anr. 1999 (1) KLJ (NOC) 33 = 1999(1) KLT 694 . J.B.Koshy {J}]

Sec. 15 Notice of hearing issued without disclosing reasons for rectification is not a valid notice. The fact that the assessee is aware of the mistake from the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition cannot be a defence. Notice is mandatory. The hearing contemplated is a "fair hearing" and not an empty formality. [Shajahan vs Tahasildar. 2000(3) KLT 143. J.B.Koshy (J)] 

BACK TO MAIN PAGE 
 The above gist of the judgments are copyright material and copying without written permission is prohibited.  Although due care and caution have been taken to avoid mistakes or omissions, while editing, the user is requested to verify the same with the original before using it in courts