Petitioner is a company incorporated, which is a Government of India Enterprises, providing Telecommunication service all over the country. Before formation of the petitioner company, the activity in question was being carried out by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. The petitioner is now occupying properties and buildings owned by the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) used for providing such facilities. According to the petitioner none of the assets of the DOT has been transferred into the name of the petitioner. Hence, inspite of occupation of various buildings by the petitioner, ownership of such buildings still vests with the Government of India, more precisely with the President of India.

2. The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to assessment of Building Tax under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975 (KBT Act) with respect to a building occupied by the petitioner situated at Kondotty in Malappuram District, in which the Telephone Exchange is housed. The ground floor of the building in question was constructed by the DOT and no assessment was made in view of the exemption provided under Article 285 (1) of the Constitution of India and in view of the exemption provided under Section 3(1)(a) of the KBT Act. Later, the petitioner had constructed two more floors on the existing building, construction of which was completed on 15.11.2000 and 28.12.2001 respectively.

3. On the basis of return filed in Form No:II as provided under the relevant Rules, the 1st respondent finalised the assessment as per Ext.P1 order, without giving exemption for the ground portion owned by the DOT. Ext.P1 order was challenged by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, the appellate authority. But the appeal was dismissed holding that the petitioner being a company the exemption under Section (3)(1)(a) of the KBT Act is not applicable.

4. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P2 order, the 2nd respondent had omitted to take note of the contention that, the ground floor of the building was not conveyed to the petitioner and that the Central Government still continues to be its owner, and the same is liable to be exempted. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner filed a rectification application as evidenced from Ext.P3. But without considering pendency of such application, revenue recovery steps were initiated on issuing Ext.P4 and P5 demand notices. Hence the actions in this regard are challenged in this writ petition.

5. Contention of the petitioner is that the assessment ought to have been restricted for the plinth area covered by the first and second floors of the building. It is noticed that while finalising the assessment the entire plinth area of all the 3 floors were taken together and the entire building was assessed as a single unit. If it is evident that the ground floor remained completed prior to occupation by the petitioner and it was constructed by DOT. The said building (the ground floor) is liable to be exempted from payment of tax since it was owned by the Government of India as on the date of completion, which is the taxable event.

6. But the question arises as to what should be the procedure to be adopted for completion of assessment with respect to the additional constructions effected. Going by Section 5(4) of the Kerala Building Tax Act and as settled through various precedents of this court, the proper procedure is to reckon the entire plinth area for the purpose of assessment and to give credit to the tax amount already paid. But the procedure as contemplated under Section 5 (4) will be applicable only in a case where the existing building was completed after the 'appointed day'. Needless to observe that if the ground floor is completed prior to the 'appointed day', then the assessment can be completed only with respect to the first floor and second floor, as contemplated under Section 5(3).

7. On the other hand, if it is found that the ground floor was comple