1. The petitioner is mainly challenging Exhibit P1 order, passed by the Government, rejecting the claim for exemption of the Building, under Section 3(1) (b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Eventhough, the petitioner filed Exhibit P10 Review Petition, the same did not turn to be fruitful and it was rejected vide Exhibit P2 which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition, challenging the steps taken by the respondents to realize the amount stated as due from the petitioner.

2. When the matter came for admission before this Court on 24-08-2009, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already satisfied 1/4th of the liability, as borne by Exhibit P8 receipt, coercive steps were intercepted directing the respondents to file counter affidavit, if any. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, seeking to sustain the impugned proceedings, asserting that the building belonging to the petitioner does not qualify to get any exemption under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act and hence that the impugned orders are not assailable under any circumstances. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit rebutting the facts and figures stated in the counter affidavit, simultaneously asserting that, the specific case put forth by the petitioner in Exhibit P10 has not been properly considered as evident from Exhibit P2, whereby the rejection is stated as for a new reason that there was 'no manufacturing process' in the workshop situated in the building.

3. With regard to the sequence of events, the petitioner is a dealer of 'Maruthi Vehicles', engaged in sale and 'after sales service' effecting the necessary repairs and maintenance of the vehicles. In connection with thebusiness, the petitioner constructed a building having a plinth area of 8997.86 m2 and necessary license as borne by Exhibit P5 was obtained from the local authority, for running the unit. Similarly, the petitioner also approached the Director of Factories and Boilers, who, after considering all the relevant particulars issued Exhibit P6 permit under the Factories Act, also referring to the area of the building as 8997.86m2 and also clearly mentioning against column No. 7 that, the 'manufacturing activity' was with regard to the repair and service of automobiles.

4. On the basis of the report stated as obtained from the Village authorities, the 2nd respondent, who is the Assessing Authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act, passed Exhibit P3 assessment order, where by a liability of about 16 lakhs was imposed upon the petitioner, observing that the total plinth area of the building as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act was nearly 11152.653m2 and since the area being used as 'workshop' was only 1566.57 m2, the remaining area was liable to be assessed accordingly. With regard to the extent of 'workshop' area, the matter was referred for decision of the Government, as provided under Section 3 (2) of the 'Act'.

5. Being aggrieved of Exhibit P3, the petitioner preferred Exhibit P7 Appeal before third respondent after satisfying the initial/statutory deposit of 25% as borne by Exhibit P8 receipt. It is stated that the Appeal is still pending before the 3rd respondent .

6. While so, the reference made by the second respondent was considered by first respondent/ Government and as per Exhibit P1, it was observed that the course pursued by the assessing authority, segregating the portions as 'workshop' and the remaining area, thereby causing a reference in respect of the smaller extent of 'workshop area', for considering the question of exemption was not correct or proper. It is stated, as per provisions of the statute, exemption is contemplated in respect of the whole building, if the same is 'principally being used' for the religious, charitable or educational purpose or for the other purposes, as specified. In the instant case, the dispute also relates to the measurement conducted by the PWD authorities, which is stated as made at t