The assessing authority must disclose the basis of assessment, and the capital value cannot be fixed without reference to the annual value as per the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, Section 6(2). Additionally, the petitioner must be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The petitioner, which is a Firm, had constructed a three-storied commercial building in Paravur Municipality, in Ernakulam District. The construction was completed by December, 1986. 'The annual value was fixed at Rs.87.500/- in the first instance by the Paravur Municipality, but that was reduced in revision to Rs.75, 000/- the assessing authority functioning under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (the Act), completed an assessment, Ext.P1 under the Act, fixing the capital value of the building at Rs. 10,59,098/- with a liability for tax of Rs.79, 659/-. Exl.P1 did not disclose the reason why the assessing authority chose to depart from the annual value fixed by the local authority, or the capital value based thereon namely Rs.750000/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under S.11 of the Act. But it was dismissed by an order, which was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Collector under S.13 of the Act, which was also dismissed by the proceedings, Ext.P5, dated 9-11-1990. All that the District Collector did was to state in the order, Ext.P5, that the capital value of the building fixed by the assessing authority, the Tahsildar, was "fair and reasonable" and that the petitioner did not produce sufficient evidence to justify its claim for "a reconsideration of the assessment". The petitioner challenges these proceedings under the Act.

2. The learned Government Pleader who appeared for the respondents, stated that on the filing of the return by the petitioner, he was called for a hearing by the Tahsildar, at which he produced a valuation statement from his architect-engineer disclosing the cost of construction as Rs.10, 43,500/-. Thereupon the Tahsildar fixed the capital value at Rs.10, 59,098/- making some addition for the value of the land as well. Government Pleader submits that since the capital value has been fixed after notice to the petitioner, there is no scope for interference by this Court with the orders in question.

3. The order of assessment, Ext.P1, is blank so far as the basis of the assessment is concerned. The annual value fixed by the local authority being Rs.75, 000/-, the capital value should normally have been Rs.7, 50,000/- under S.2(f) read with S.6(1) of the Act. But the assessing authority is vested with a power under S.6(2) to fix the annual value of the building if he is of opinion that the annual value fixed by the local authority is too low, but he could re-fix the annual value only after affording the owner of the building an opportunity of being heard. What the assessing authority has done in Ext.P1 is not to fix the annual value afresh under the power vested in him under S. 6(2), but simply to fix the capital value at Rs. 10,59,098/-without disclosing the basis thereof. The basis of this valuation was not disclosed even in the revisional order; Ext.P5 where the District Collector merely chose to observe that the capital value fixed by the Tahsildar was fair and reasonable. It was only in this court that the Government Pleader purported to give some colour of explanation for the capital value fixed. An order of assessment, being the culmination of a quasi-judicial process, should disclose, on its face, the basis on which it is made. The materials on which the assessing authority chooses to depart from the annual value fixed by the local authority should be disclosed in the order of assessment itself. The assessment should be self-contained, containing the reasons for it and the basis thereof. This requirement is all the more imperative since the order of assessment is subject to appeal and revision under the Act, an effective appeal or revision is not possible unless the person affected knows the reasons for the adverse verdict against him. The Act contemplates the capital value on which the tax is levied to be a multiple of the annual value fixed by the local authority. The power of the assess