Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. The petitioner put up a commercial building in R.S. No. 96/1 and 310/2 of Payyannur amsom within the Payyannur Municipality, which was assigned Door Nos. 12/390 to 400 by the Payyannur Municipality. The building was assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 on the basis that its capital value was Rs. 4,14,000/- Tax of Rs. 15,480/- was accordingly levied as per order dt. 27.1.1991. On 2.2.1994 the petitioner was given Ext. P1 notice stating that there are some errors apparent in the assessment of capital value and that the assessment was proposed to be modified. The petitioner is aggrieved that though he filed Ext. P2 objections, the assessment was modified casting an additional burden of Rs. 12,270/- on the petitioner vide Ext. P3 order. He is also aggrieved that the appeals filed by him before respondents 2 and 3 were both dismissed vide Exts. P4 and P5 orders. 2. I have heard both sides. The learned Government Pleader supports the impugned orders on the ground that section 15 of the Act confers sufficient power on the Assessing Authority to re-open assessments and that it was after considering the objections filed by the petitioner that the assessment was modified vide Ext. P3 order. It was also stated that the petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence to show that the proposal contained in Ext. p1 was incorrect. Yet another argument is that the ground floor of commercial buildings would attract better rent and in that perspective it has to be assessed at a larger rate than the rate applied to the first floor and that it was the audit authority who pointed out the said defect which led to issuance of Ext. P1 notice. 3. Having heard both sides, I think that the petitioner is entitled to succeed for more than one reason Section 15 of the Act does not confer absolute power on the Assessing Authority to modify assessments once completed. On the other hand, very limited powers alone are conferred on the authority under Section 15. For the sake of convenience the section is quoted hereunder. On the other hand, very limited powers alone are conferred on the authority under Section 15. For the sake of convenience the section is quoted hereunder. Rectification of Mistake :- (1) The appellate authority or the revisional authority may, at any time within three years from the date of an order passed by it on appeal or revision as the case may be and the assessing authority may, at any time within three years from the date of any assessment or order passed by it, of its own motion, rectify any mistake apparent from the record of the appeal, revision, assessment or order, as the case may be, and shall, within the like period, rectify any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by an assessee : Provided that no such rectification shall be made which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (2) Whether any such rectification has the effect of reducing the assessment, the assessing authority shall make any refund which may be due to such assessee. (3) Where any such rectification has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund, the assessing authority shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable; and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be issued under section 10 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. What is allowed under the section is only rectification of a mistake and that too only if the mistake is apparent on the face of the records. The original assessment order did not refer to the basis on which the two stories were valued. Ext. P1 notice also did not specify that the error which is to be rectified is the fixation of capital value for the ground floor at a rate different from that of the first floor or that the ground floor has to be fixed with more capital value. Such being the case, the petitioner could not have filed proper objections with regard to the proposal. What was mentioned in Ext. P1 was only that there were errors which the petitioner countered by filing Ext. P2. Even in Ext. Such being the case, the petitioner could not have filed proper objections with regard to the proposal. What was mentioned in Ext. P1 was only that there were errors which the petitioner countered by filing Ext. P2. Even in Ext. P3 order there is no mention that the mistake rectified is the adoption of the criteria for fixing capital value in respect of the ground floor and the first floor. 4. I have perused Exts. P4 and P5 appellate orders, wherein also there is no mention that the said factor is the mistake sought to be rectified. Thus Ext. P1 order is one passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to effectively show cause against the proposal and on that ground itself the petition is liable to be allowed. 5. It is also a fact that Ext. P3 order could not have been passed by the Assessing Authority invoking power under Section 15 of the Act. That aspect is no more res integra and is actually covered by the Bench decision in Kurian George v. Tahsildar (1995 (2) K.L.T. 457). 5. It is also a fact that Ext. P3 order could not have been passed by the Assessing Authority invoking power under Section 15 of the Act. That aspect is no more res integra and is actually covered by the Bench decision in Kurian George v. Tahsildar (1995 (2) K.L.T. 457). After discussing the relevant case law and the various aspects from the scheme of the Act, the Bench laid down the law as follows : The following propositions of law emerge out of the above decisions : (1) Subject to the provision of period of limitation prescribed by the relevant statute, a mistake apparent from the record can be rectified by the competent authority named therein ; (2) Usually, the following mistakes are considered to be "mistakes apparent from the record"; (a) Arithmetical error (b) Clerical error (c) Slip or inadvertent omission in an order or judgment ; (d) If the later enactment having retrospective operation enables an authority to modify or alter the original assessment order; and (e) Where in the earlier assessment order no valid principle of law was applied; (a) the authority has passed orders by taking one of the alternative views, where two views are possible; (b) the authority has adopted one of the alternative methods available for assessment of tax according to law and later finds that more amount of tax could be obtained by adopting the alternative method; (c) a mistake has to be discovered by a long drawn process of reasoning or examining arguments on points of law and on facts or when further evidence is required to be adduced to rectify the mistake; (4) Re-opening or review of an assessment order is not permissible if the relevant statute does not confer such power on an authority; (5) Taxing authority is a quasi-judicial authority. Hence no higher administrative authority or even appellate authority without hearing the affected party or in the absence of an appeal can give direction to the assessing authority to pass order in one way or the other. (6) A writ is maintainable even at the notice stage, where threat of prejudicial action is wholly without jurisdiction. Hence no higher administrative authority or even appellate authority without hearing the affected party or in the absence of an appeal can give direction to the assessing authority to pass order in one way or the other. (6) A writ is maintainable even at the notice stage, where threat of prejudicial action is wholly without jurisdiction. (7) An order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued by the High Court prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such action inspite of existence of such alternative remedies as appeals and revisions." Observation that the value is insufficient is not one of the grounds allowed by Section 15 as interpreted by the Bench in the said decision. Even the undisclosed fact that the ground floor attracts larger value (which is projected as the justification during the arguments today) is not a ground which can be allowed as proper and sufficient to invoke Section 15 as interpreted in the aforesaid decision. The Legislature was cautions in enacting section 15 in the particular manner. Political set up and circumstances will go on changing. The person who constructs a building should not be unnecessarily harassed every time there is a change in the personnel occupying the particular officer. An assessment once made should not, except for every apparent reasons, be changed subsequently causing difficulties to the assessee. It is therefore that the Legislature was cautions in circumscribing the limit of rectification of mistake. The fact that in the opinion of a successor in the seat of the assessing authority or for that matter even an audit officer a portion of the building would attract higher rent and on that basis warrants fixation of higher capital value is not at all a ground contemplated under Section 15. In the circumstances I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the impugned orders are to be set aside. The Original Petition is allowed. Exts. P3, P4 and P5 revisional orders are set aside.