Point of Law: It is not permissible to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds if statute does not permit the same.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. The petitioner, owner of a building bearing door Nos. VI/1702 and VI/1703 (old Building No. IX/1810), seeks to quash Ext. P6 assessment order dated 06.10.2016 issued by the Tahsildar, Ottapalam Taluk, respondent No. 2, under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (‘Act 1975’ for short), whereby the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs. 9,79,200/- in 4 instalments starting from 05.11.2016 and ending on 05.08.2017.

2. According to the petitioner, the building having a plinth area of 798.83 sq. meters was constructed for running a rice mill after securing permit from the Cherpulassery Grama Panchayat on 02.02.2008. Subsequently he obtained a permit for the construction of a godown adjacent to the rice mill and after completion, the building having a plinth area of 2431.79 square meters, was allotted door No. IX/1903 by the Panchayat in the year 2011 and the same was subsequently re-numbered as VI/1703, as is evident from Ext. P2 receipt for the property tax paid by the petitioner. Later, the petitioner decided to use the building as an auditorium. However, when the petitioner submitted the application for licence before the local authority, he was directed by the local authority to submit a plan for change of occupancy of the building from commercial to assembly occupancy. Accordingly, he submitted a conversion plan and later approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 10098 of 2014 and secured a judgment dated 11.04.2014, directing the Secretary of the Panchayat to consider the application for change of occupancy.

3. The Secretary has rejected the same and being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 718 of 2014 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner had approached the Sub Collector, Ottapalam under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and the Sub Collector, by order dated 01.01.2015, permitted the conversion of the petitioner's property for utilization of other purposes. In the light of the order dated 01.01.2015 passed by the Sub Collector, Appeal No. 718 of 2014 was disposed of by the Tribunal by Ext. P3 order dated 16.07.2016 directing the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to reconsider the conversion plan submitted by the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, as per Ext. P4 order dated 12.08.2016, granted occupancy change. The case of the petitioner is that he has not made any addition or alterations to the building in question. However, the Tahsildar, Ottapalam, respondent No. 2, as per Ext. P6 order dated 06.10.2016, made an assessment directing the petitioner to pay the amount towards the building tax under the Act, 1975.

5. The paramount contention advanced by the learned Senior counsel is that the petitioner has not been issued with an assessment notice as contemplated under Section 7(3) of the Act, 1975, nor was he afforded an opportunity of being heard as contemplated under Sections 9(2) and (3) of the Act, 1975 before passing an order of assessment. It is also contended that the plinth area of the building in question is only 2431.79 sq. meters; whereas in Ext. P6, the Tahsildar calculated the plinth area of the building as 2875.48 sq. meters.

6. That apart, it is contended that Section 6 of the Act, 1975 provides that the plinth area of a building for the purpose of imposition of building tax is the plinth area of the building as specified in the plan approved by the local authority; and according to the petitioner, Ext. P5 is the plan approved by the local authority and therefore, the assessment made by the Tahsildar is against the provisions of the Act, 1975. Accordingly, petitioner seeks interference with Ext. P6 order of assessment.

7. The Tahsildar has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. According to the Tahsildar, the petitioner has constructed a commercial bu