Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. Petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and it is fully owned by the Government of India. It constructed residential flats in 24 multi-storeyed flats and one building for telephone exchange. In the return filed by the company under the Kerala Buildings Tax Act and Ext. P2 objections, company contended that it is a company fully owned by the Government of India and, therefore, buildings are owned by Government and it is exempted under S.3(1) of the Act and before assessment this question should be referred to the Government under S.3(2). Second contention raised was that each flat in the residential complex is built to provide accommodation to the employees and, therefore, each flat is separate. Since most of the flats are below 75 square metres they are exempt and in any event assessments should be made on each flats separately. 2. First, I may take the contention that each flat should be considered as separate buildings. 'Building' is defined under S.2 (e) of the Act which is as follows: ""building means a house, out-house, garage, or any other structure, or part thereof, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, metal or other material but does not include any portable shelter or any shed constructed principally of mud, bamboos, leaves, grass or thatch or a latrine which is not attached to the main structure." However, explanation 2 to S.2(e) provides as follows: "Where a building consists of different apartments or flats owned by different persons and the cost of construction of the building was met by all such persons jointly, each such apartment or flat shall be deemed to be a separate building." Only when apartments or flats are owned by different persons, a part of the building like flats etc can be assessed separately. Here, admittedly, all the 184 flats in the 24 buildings are owned by the company and not owned by different persons. Hence petitioner company is not entitled to get the benefit of the above explanation. 3. Next contention is that petitioner is a company owned by the Government of India and therefore, exempt from building tax under S.3(1)(a ). Here, admittedly, all the 184 flats in the 24 buildings are owned by the company and not owned by different persons. Hence petitioner company is not entitled to get the benefit of the above explanation. 3. Next contention is that petitioner is a company owned by the Government of India and therefore, exempt from building tax under S.3(1)(a ). S.3(1)(a) is quoted below: "3(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to a ) buildings owned by the Government of Kerala or the Government of India or any local authority;" The building constructed by the petitioner is owned by the company. It cannot called a Government building. It is true that shares of the company are now fully with the Government of India. But, building owned by a Government company cannot be treated as a building owned by Government of India. An incorporated company is a separate independent personality and, therefore, it is not Government itself. (See Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1969 (II) LLJ 549 SC); Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Their Workmen & Ors. (1975 (II) LLJ 336 SC); and Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh v. Model Mills (1984 (II) LLJ 507). Hence petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under S.3(1)(a ). 4. Recently, Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1997 (1) KLT 820 (SC)) held that similar Government companies cannot be treated as Departments of Government. It was held as follows: "19. After giving our careful consideration to the facts of the case and the respective contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the appellant company cannot be held to be a department of the Government. There may be deep and pervasive control of the Government over the appellant company and the appellant company, on such account may be an instrumentality or agency of the Central Government and as such a 'State' within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution. Even though the appellant company is an agency or instrumentality of the Central Government, it cannot be held to be a department or establishment of the Government in all cases. The establishment of a Government only connotes in its plain meaning an establishment directly run by the Government and not through the agency or instrumentality of the Government". Even though the appellant company is an agency or instrumentality of the Central Government, it cannot be held to be a department or establishment of the Government in all cases. The establishment of a Government only connotes in its plain meaning an establishment directly run by the Government and not through the agency or instrumentality of the Government". Here also, the question raised is not infringement of fundamental rights but only regarding the eligibility to exemption in a taxing Statute. What is exempted from taxation is only buildings owned by the Government. Building of a company incorporated under the Companies Act cannot be held a Government building merely because shares of that company are fully owned by the Government. It is a well accepted principle that while considering exemption provisions of a taxing statute, literal and strict construction should be adhered to in the absence of ambiguity, unless such interpretation brings arbitrary or irrational results contrary to the objects of the Act. Here, it is clear that only Government building is exempted from taxation and not Government company's building. 5. Since I have found that petitioner's buildings are not buildings owned by the Government, on merit after hearing both sides, there is no point in referring the matter to the Government under S.3(2). Further an unconditional stay of collection of tax was granted as early as on 23.9.1993 and after more than five years it is not fair to relegate the parties for another round of litigation. For a reference under S.3(2) a 'question' should arise. Here, no prima facie question arises for reference to the Government under S.3(2) of the Act in view of clear language used in the Statutes and undisputed facts. 6. Lastly, it was contended that petitioner is entitled to exemption under Explanation I to S.2(e). Explanation I to S.2(e) is as follows: "In the case of buildings constructed for providing housing accommodation for workers and their families residing in plantation, in pursuance of S.15 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (Central Act, 69 of 1951) or building constructed under the Government of India Subsidized Housing Scheme for industrial workers, each part of a building providing or intended to provide accommodation for the worker or a worker and his family shall be deemed to be a separate building." Petitioner is not a plantation. There is no averment that the building was constructed under the Government of India Subsidized Housing Scheme. No evidence is produced to that effect even in the Original Petition. No such contention were raised in Ext. P2 objection also. Hence the above contention also fails. 7. I also note that S.11 of the Act provides a statutory remedy of appeal and hence writ petition will not be normally lie as effective alternate statutory remedy is provided for. Now, the alternate remedy is time-barred. Having admitted the writ petition and as the matter was pending for more than five years in the court and since the matter was argued in detail by both sides, Original Petition is disposed of on merit. 8. The Original Petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. No costs.