M. AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI versus TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 167 · Decided: 18-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

M. AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI 
A 
v. 
TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE KERALA AND ORS. 
FEB RU ARY 18, 2005 
[RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Building Tax Act, 1975-Sections 6(3) and 15(1)-Building tax-
levy of-On newly constructed building-Initial assessment by invqking Section 
6(3)-'-Subsequent order invoking Section 15(1) for rectification of the previous C 
order-Assessment u/s. 15(/) upheld by the Revenue Authority, Single Judge 
and Division Bench of High Court-On appeal, held: Since the building in 
question was new, Section 6(3) could not have been invoked as the same is 
applicable only in cases covered u/s 5(2),(3) or (4) to a building already in 
existence-Hence, order invoking Section 15(/) for rectifying the mistake 
apparent on the record was justified 
D 
Expression "Any mistake apparent from the record"-Ambit and scope 
of 
Appellant filed return under Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 for 
assessment of building tax in respect of a building newly constructed in E 
the year 1987. The assessing authority by its order dated 15.2.1988 assessed 
the building tax exercising its power u/s. 6(3) of the Act. Subsequently after 
fixation of capital value by the local authority, proceedings were initiated 
~ 
u/s.15(1) by the assessing authority for rectification of mistake in 
assessment order dated 15.2.1988. After affording an opportunity of 
hearing to the appellant, by order dated 5.2.1991 appellant was directed F 
to pay building tax on the basis of valuation fixed by the local authority. 
The revised assessment was upheld by District Collector and Single Judge 
as well as Division Bench of High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the order u/s 6(3) G 
by the assessing authority being legal and valid could not have been 
rectified u/s.15(1) and hence there was an error of law and of jurisdiction; 
that Section 16(1) bars revision of assessment made u/s 6(2) or (3); that 
Section 6(3) is not limited in its application to cases falling u/s.5(2), (3) or 
(4). 
167 
H 
168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondents contended that since the. power u/s 6(3) could be 
exercised only in the cases covered by Section 5(2), (3) or (4) the same 
could not have been applied in case of newly constructed building; that 
Section 15(1) was rightly invoked; that the subsequent order passed by 
invoking Section 15(1) was legal and valid as it was passed after affording 
B opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The action of the local authority as also of the assessing 
authority was legal, valid and within the powers conferred on them by 
the statut~. A conjoint reading of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 5 
C of Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 and sub-section (3) of Section 6 makes 
it clear that power of assessing authority is limited to the cases of repair, 
improvement, construction, additions or combination of a building already 
in existence and it does not extend to a totally new building or a building 
constructed for the first time an~ to which the Act applies. (174-D; G-HJ 
D 
2. It cannot be said that Section 6(J) is not llmited in its application 
to cases falling under sub-sections (2), (3) or (4) of Section 5 but also to 
any construction of a building. A court of law cannot rewrite a statutory 
provision ~nd holding contrary to that would be destructive to the scheme 
of the Act making Section 6(1) nugatory. The interpretation sought to be 
E suggested by the appellant virtually deprives the statutory power of the 
local authority of determining capital value of a building situate within 
. 
'l 
' 
. 
-
the area of such local authority. 1175-C, El 
· 
4. The assessing authority was wholly justifie-d in -invoking -Section 
15 of the Act and in exercising the power of 'rectification of mis.take 
F apparent on the record. The expression "any mistake apparent from the 
record" used in sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act cannot be defined 
scientifically, precisely or exhaustively and should be determined in the 
light of t~e facts and circumstances of each case. An error can be said to 
be an error apparent on the face of the record, if it is patent, manifest or 
G self evident. If one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the 
judgment or order is correct or not, the e~ror cannot bl! described as an 
error apparent on the face of the record. f175-F, G-H; 176-A) 
3. As the order passed under Section 6(3) by the·assessing auth

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.