The charge under the Kerala Building Tax Act is on the building itself, and there is no provision for clubbing together separate buildings constructed by the same owner. The taxable event is the completion of construction of the building.

Similar questions arise for consideration in these two writ petitions arising out of assessments made under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (the Act in brief ), I shall therefore deal with them together. I shall first state the facts in O.P.No.7512 of 1992.

2. Petitioner is the managing partner of a firm consisting of three partners. The firm put up a building consisting of sixteen shop rooms. It put up another building, separated from the first building in which a hotel is being run. The two buildings are separated from each other by what is termed by the petitioner as a road. Seventeen separate returns were filed for assessing the sixteen shop rooms in the first building, and the second building, as separate units of assessment under the Act. The second respondent assessing authority did not however accept the claim for making seventeen separate assessments. On the other hand, he clubbed together all the returns and completed a consolidated assessment of the shopping complex and the hotel building on a capital value of Rs. 6,53,400/- with a tax liability of Rs. 39,090/-. Copies of the order of assessment and of the notice of demand are Exts. P1 and P2 respectively. The assessment was challenged unsuccessfully in appeal before the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer. A copy of his order is Ext. P3. The matter was taken up in revision before the fourth respondent District Collector, but he also did not find his way to accept the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the revision petition by his order Ext. P4. This writ petition is filed challenging the orders Exts. P1,P3 and P4.

3. The facts in O.P.No. 7744 of 1992 are similar. It is filed by a person who is a common partner of two firms, M/s.Vasantha Complex and M/s. Gayathri Complex. The two firms have a number of common partners, but it is unnecessary to refer to the constitution of those firms, as it is not relevant for the purposes of this case. Two separate buildings were constructed by the two firms in twenty two cents of land which belonged to two of the common partners. The funds for the construction were raised by the firms separately. The buildings are separated by a road having a width of five metres. The assessing authority, namely the second respondent, treated the two buildings as one unit, put up by one and the same assessable entity and assessed them in the name of the petitioner as the managing partner of the two firms, on a capital value of Rs. 28,45,800 with a tax liability of Rs. 2,58,330/-. True copies of the order of assessment and of the notice of demand are Exts.P1 and P2. Appeal and the revision filed therefrom met with dismissal by the orders Exts. P3 and P4. Petitioner filed this original petition challenging Exts. P1, P2, P3 and P4. The question which arises for consideration is whether the two buildings can be treated as one unit and assessed as such or whether they should be treated as two different units and assessed separately.

4. The main contention raised before me is that the two buildings in each of these cases, which are separated by a road, should have been assessed separately and not as one unit. There are certain other questions also raised by the petitioners, but I am not dealing with them in the view that I have taken on the point mentioned above. The only question which I am considering is whether the two separate buildings, separated by road, could be treated as one unit and assessed on a consolidated basis.

5. Even at the outset, I must mention of a very refreshing feature of both these cases, which redounds to the credit of the assessing authorities, that they have passed detailed orders of assessment, unlike other cases of assessment under the Act which contain nothing but the figures, the basis of or the materials for the assessment. Both of them have considered the points raised and reached their own conclusions stating the reasons therefor. I should express my appreciation of the way in which the a