The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing authority cannot revise assessments under S.15 of the Act based on reports that were already available at the time of the original assessments, and the mistakes must be apparent from the record to exercise jurisdiction under S.15.

Patnaik, J.

Both the appeals and the Original Petitions were heard together as a common question of law arises for consideration. Petitioners in O.P.No. 10901 of 1990 are the appellants in W.A.No.1320 of 1993 and the respondent in the O.P. is the appellant in W.A.No.44 of 1994. A learned single judge of this Court referred O.P. Nos. 1106 and 1541 of 1989 to a Division Bench with an observation that similar questions raised therein have been answered differently by this Court in different cases and those decisions require reconsideration.

2. The facts of the case in O.P.No. 10901 of 1990 are as follows:

The Petitioners are the owners of a 4 storied building having a plinth area of 303 Sq. meter each bearing Sy. No. 18/1-2 of Muttambalam Village within the limits of Kottayam Municipality. The construction was completed in October, 1985. The petitioners filed a return under section 7 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. On a consideration of the return, the Tahsildar, Kottayam (Assessing authority) determined the capital value of the building as Rs. 1068320/-. An amount of Rs. 80,582/- was assessed as tax in Ext. P2 order dated 27.11.1989. The petitioners were directed to remit the amount in four quarterly-instalments. But, before the last instalment of tax was paid they were served with Ext. P3 notice dated 1-8-1990 under section 15 of the Kerala Building Tax Act thereinafter referred to as "act" ). It was indicated in Ext. P3 that the original assessment fixing the capital value of the building and tax is erroneous and the assessment so made is proposed to be rectified by fixing the capital value as Rs. 26,29,080/- and tax as Rs. 2,36,658/-. The petitioners were therefore called upon to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,56,076/- as the balance tax after deducting the amount already paid. In Ext. P3 notice, the petitioners were asked to file objection, if any, against the proposed assessment. In pursuance thereof, they have filed Ext. P4 representation before the respondent challenging the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to exercise his power under section 15 of the Act for rectification of the so called mistake. Thereafter, the Tahsildar issued Ext. P5 notice calling upon the petitioners to pay the balance amount. The petitioners, therefore, filed this Original Petition challenging ligality of Exts. P3 and P5, and pray that the same may be quashed.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that after the issue of Ext. P2 order and demand notice, the auditors noticed that while finalising the assessment of building tax the assessing authority has totally omitted to take note of the report of the Revenue Inspector containing his recommendation to fix the captial value on the basis of estimated gross annual rent of the building as a hotel and lodge. The assessing authority, therefore ,found that the assessment in question was vitiated by an error apparent on the record in as much as the assessment was finalised by overlooking an important report of the Revenue Inspector suggesting a different method for assessing annual value and capital value different from the one adopted by the assessing authority in this case. On a further scrutiny of the assessment file, the assessing authority found that: the assessment order already issued being vitiated by an error apparent from the record required rectification under section 15 Of the Act. In the course of the rectification proceedings, a local inspection with notice to the petitioners was also held by the assessing authority before finalising the assessment as proposed in Exts. P3 and P5.

3. It may be noted here that a hotel is being ran in the building in the name and style M/s. Nisha Continental. In Ext. P1 return, the date of occupation of the building was shown as 4-11-1985 and the monthly rent thereof was shown as Rs. 8,000/-. The capital value of the building was shown as Rs. 9,60,000/- But, the local authority fixed annual value at Rs. 1,06,832/-. On receipt of