J.B. Koshy, J.

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:

"Whereas it is found that the demand already made to you on 30.9.1997 as per this office order No. E4-9021/96 under S.10 requires revision on the basis of Government order No. 10322/a2/96 law dated 22.11.1994.

It is hereby ordered that you shall pay building tax as per the revised assessment and demand as detailed below."

It is also mentioned in the notice that balance amount should be remitted on or before 15.12.1992. By Ext. P3, Ext. P2 was sought to be rectified under S.15 of the Act.

Petitioner was assessed to tax at the rate mentioned in the schedule as existing on the date of assessment.

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.

4. Assessment of the building was correctly made by Ext. P2 under S.5(1) of the Act. I have also held in O.P. No. 1631 of 1999 that in such buildings which are constructed after the appointed day, building tax should be assessed on the basis of the schedule existing on the date of taxable event, that is, the date of completion of the building. I also refer to the decision reported in Ummerkutty v. State of Kerala (1994 (1) KLT 781) where it was clearly held that taxable event for charging tax under the Act is the completion of the construction of the building. There is no provision in the Act that assessment will be based on the date existing on the date of final assessment and such an interpretation in the absence of specific provision will create uncertainty and unjust result. Being a taxing provision, strict interpretation of S.5(1) is necessary. One cannot add the words "as existing on the date of final assessment" after the word 'schedule' in S.5(1) for taxing a citizen by inference without clear words in the Statute. (See Mathu