Judgment :- D. Sreedevi, J. Petitioner has filed this Original Petition for an order issuing a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P3 and P4. Petitioner constructed a commercial building consisting of ground floor and four top floors in Sy. No. 625/8-9 of Ernakulam Village, after getting licence from the Cochin Corporation. The construction was completed on 1.12.1984. The First, Second and Third Floors were leased out to different parties. The Fourth Floor was let out to registered charitable institution known as "Lis". Petitioner has submitted a return to the first respondent, as per R.4 of the Building Tax Rules, as per notice dated 16.6.1986. Petitioner was directed to produce her title deeds. Later she was directed to produce copy of sanction order of the Cochin Corporation dated 28.11.1984. Petitioner informed the Revenue Inspector the rate of assessment of each floor by Corporation and pointed out that the fourth floor is exempted. Petitioner claimed exemption for the fourth floor, as per S.3 of the Kerala Building Tax Act. S.3 relates to exemption of buildings, which are used for charitable purposes. S.3(2) of the Act provides, "if any question arises as to whether a building falls under sub-s.(1) it shall be referred to the Government and the Government shall decide the question after giving the interested parties an opportunity to present their case". Under sub-s.(3) of S.2 of the Act, "a decision of the Government under sub-s.(2) shall be final and shall not be called in question in a court of law". Before the Amendment Act, the building tax was assessed on the basis of the annual rental value. But later, as per the amended Act of the year 1992 the same was changed by S.5 of the said Act, which reads as follows: "S.5(1): - Change of Building Tax: Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act there shall be charged a tax (hereinafter referred to as Building Tax) based on the plinth area at the rate specified in the Schedule on every building the construction of which is completed on or after the appointed day. (2) In the case of any building the construction of which is completed prior to the appointed day the assessee shall be liable to pay the building tax as if the Kerala Building Tax." Sub-s.(2) of S.6 provides, "in the case of any building, the construction of which is completed prior to the appointed day (19.2.1992).... the building tax shall be assessed on the basis of the plinth area at the rate specified in the schedule." As per sub-s.(2) of the amended S.5 of the Act, the assessee whose assessment is not completed is eligible to exercise an option of being taxed either under the old Act or under the new Act. Petitioner submitted Ext. P1 representation to the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk. She has also submited Ext. P2 representation on 9.12.1992, wherein she has requested to assess the building tax as per the provisions of the Building Tax Amendment Act, taking into consideration the plinth area. Ignoring the said representation, the Tahsildar passed Ext. P3 assessment order, wherein he has taken into consideration the capital value of the building for assessment. The Tahsildar passed the order on 31.3.1993. The construction of the building was completed prior to the amendment Act. Petitioner has given her option stating that the provisions of the New Act has to be applied in assessing the tax. 2. When there is a dispute regarding the question as to whether the Fourth Floor is used for Charitable purposes and the petitioner is entitled to exemption regarding that floor, the same has to be referred to the Government for decision under S.3 of the Act. This is supported by the decision of this Court in Church of South India v. Tahsildar, 1996 (1) KLT 499, where this Court held: "when a claim is made for exemption and when the claim is not immediately conceded to, the resultant position is that a question would arise whether the exemption claimed should be granted or not. Such question can be determined only by the Government. As the question has not been referred to the Government for decision, Tahsildar has acted without jurisdiction in making the assessment without obtaining a decision from the Government". Without referring the matter to the Government, the Tahsildar has passed orders. On that ground itself the said order is not valid. The learned counsel Mr. As the question has not been referred to the Government for decision, Tahsildar has acted without jurisdiction in making the assessment without obtaining a decision from the Government". Without referring the matter to the Government, the Tahsildar has passed orders. On that ground itself the said order is not valid. The learned counsel Mr. N.V. Kuriakose submitted that the Tahsildar has ignored the representations given by the petitioner regarding her option. The provisions of the new Act provided, that the petitioner can give her option as to whether the provisions in the new Act or the old Act to be applied. Petitioner has preferred the new Act to be applied for assessing building tax. The Tahsildar has not taken into consideration the option given by the petitioner. This is not legal. The learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that the procedure adopted by the Tahsildar is wrong and hence Exts. P3 and P4 are liable to be quashed. In the result, this Original Petition is allowed, Exts. P3 and P4 are quashed and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the assessment of building tax in respect of the fourth floor of the petitioner's building and pass appropriate orders, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence, if any. Regarding the other three floors, the assessment made shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Amended Act, giving due weight to the option exercised by the petitioner. No costs.