Exhibits P10 and P16 orders issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (the Act), are under challenge in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of construction and sale of commercial buildings. During 2010, the petitioner announced a building project consisting of 338 independent units in a property owned by them. Exhibit P1 is the building permit obtained by the petitioner for construction of the said building. As the units in the building were intended to be sold to third parties and as the petitioner was contemplating to construct the building with the money received from prospective purchasers of the units, they started entering into agreements with prospective buyers for sale of the units as also the undivided rights in the property. Simultaneously, the petitioner commenced the construction of the building also making use of the advance and the periodical payments received from the prospective buyers. The petitioner could not sell all the units and they have, therefore, decided to hold the unsold units in their name. The construction of the building was completed in the year 2014. On completion of the construction of the building, sale deeds have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the purchasers who have paid the price in full and came forward to get the sale deed. It is stated that by the petitioner that some of the persons to whom units have been sold are yet to come forward to get the sale deeds of their respective holdings and sale deeds were consequently not executed in their favour. It is also stated some of the petitioners to whom units have been sold are to make the full payments and therefore, sale deeds in their favour will be executed when they make the full payment.

3. According to the petitioner, the units which have been constructed for others with the funds provided by them have to be assessed under the Act in their name and the rest have to be assessed in the name of the petitioner. The assessing authority, however, assessed the entire building in the name of the petitioner in terms of Exhibit P5 order. Exhibit P5 order was interfered with by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7947 of 2016 and the assessing authority was directed to consider whether the units are liable to be treated as independent buildings for the purpose of assessment under the Act. Exhibit P6 is the judgment rendered by this court in the said writ petition. The building was assessed even thereafter in the name of the petitioner holding that Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Act relied on by the petitioner to contend that the units are treated as independent buildings does not apply to commercial buildings. Exhibit P10 is the order issued by the assessing authority in this connection. In Exhibit P10, the assessing authority has also held that since the buyers do not get a right in the property in terms of the arrangement entered into by the petitioner with them till the construction of the building is completed, the units cannot be treated as independent buildings belonging to them for assessment under the Act. The petitioner though challenged Exhibit P10 order in appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the said order holding that the materials on record do not indicate that the cost of construction of the building was met by persons who have purchased units in the building. Exhibit P16 is the order issued by the appellate authority in this connection. As noted, the petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibits P10 and P16 orders.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, it is contended by the respondents in the counter affidavit that insofar as the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 13 of the Act against Exhibit P16 order, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also contended by the respondents that neither the petitioner nor the persons to whom the petitioner sold the units have produced documents to show that the