JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is challenging Exhibit P11 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, through which an assessment finalised under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act for short) is re-opened and a reassessment is made enhancing the quantum of penalty. 2. Facts revealed in brief is that, pursuant to an inspection conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 12.08.2011, penalty under Section 126 was imposed alleging unauthorised use of electricity on the basis of detection of unauthorised connected load. The amount of penalty imposed through Exhibit P3 was remitted by the petitioner, on 25.08.2011, as evident from Exhibit P5 receipt. Subsequently Exhibit P7 notice was issued intimating that the penalty was re-assessed and the petitioner was requested to remit the balance amount. Allegation in Exhibit P7 is that the Senior Audit Officer had pointed out that the penalty charged was not in accordance with the Board's directions, because the penalisation for unauthorised extension was not charged. Allegation was raised to the effect that, on inspection conducted on 12.08.2011 unauthorised extension of temporary connection to newly constructed building, which had not received energisation approval, was detected. By Exhibit P7 the original penalty of Rs.2,45,970/- imposed was revised to Rs.14,76,000/- and the petitioner was requested to remit the balance of Rs.12,30,030/-. 3. The petitioner submitted detailed objections as per Exhibit P8 and a personal hearing was afforded by the 2nd respondent. The proposal for enhancement was confirmed through Exhibit P11, and the petitioner was requested to remit the balance amount. Exhibit P11 order is under challenge, in this writ petition, based on various grounds. 4. The petitioner inter alia contended that the inspection was not conducted by the duly authorised officer. He also contended that, penalisation made under LT VIII Tariff treating the unauthorised additional connected load as unauthorised temporary extension, is not sustainable. But sheet-Anchor of the contentions is regarding lack of jurisdiction vested on the 2nd respondent to re-open, revise or re-assess the penalty once finalised. Therefore, the question posed on the aspect of lack of jurisdiction is examined in detail. 5. Contention of the respondent in the counter affidavit is that, the reassessment is made on the basis of audit conducted by officials of the Accountant General of Kerala and is made on the basis of directions issued by the Audit Officers. Therefore, the question posed on the aspect of lack of jurisdiction is examined in detail. 5. Contention of the respondent in the counter affidavit is that, the reassessment is made on the basis of audit conducted by officials of the Accountant General of Kerala and is made on the basis of directions issued by the Audit Officers. The amount now reassessed remained unassessed, and hence the Board has got power to realise the same under Regulation 24 (5) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005. It is also contended that since the petitioner had extended supply to unoccupied premises, he is liable to be penalised under LT VIII Tariff. 6. Under Section 126 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is empowered to make a best judgment assessment of the electricity charges payable, on a person who has been found indulging in unauthorised use of electricity. Sub Section (1) requires the Assessing Officer to make the assessment on a provisional basis and to serve an order of provisional assessment on the consumer. Sub Section (3) envisages procedure for finalisation of the assessment, after giving opportunity to file objections and opportunity of personal hearing. Sub Section (5) deals with the extent of penalty which can be assessed, and Sub Section (6) deals with the quantum of penalty. Explanation contained therein clarify the term, 'unauthorised use of electricity'. Section 127 of the Act provides for a statutory appeal against the final assessment. The above provisions will clearly indicate that a self contained code is prescribed regarding the procedure to be adopted, when unauthorised use of electricity is detected. The Assessing Officer, empowered through notification issued under the Act, is discharging a quasi- judicial function in finalising the assessment. Once the Assessing Officer finalises the assessment, he become 'functus officio' in the matter and it is for the appellate authority to look into correctness of the assessment. Unless there is any statutory power conferred on the Assessing Officer enabling reopening, revision or re-assessment, he is not competent to deal with the matter, after issuance of final order of assessment. 7. It is pertinent to note that the statute had not even conferred any power on the Authorised Officer to rectify mistake if any occurred in the final assessment. In many decisions of this court and the honourable Supreme Court it is held that, procedure contemplated under Section 126 is a self contained code. 7. It is pertinent to note that the statute had not even conferred any power on the Authorised Officer to rectify mistake if any occurred in the final assessment. In many decisions of this court and the honourable Supreme Court it is held that, procedure contemplated under Section 126 is a self contained code. In Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orisssa Limited (SOUTHCO) and another V. Sri.Seetaram Rice Mill ( 2012 (2) SCC 108 ) it is held that a complete procedure is provided under Section 126 and 127, right from initiation of the proceedings till preferring of an appeal against the final order of assessment and its termination. As such it is a complete code in itself. It is sated that the assessment proceedings would commence with inspection in the premises and it ends with a best judgment assessment of the electricity charges payable, made by the Assessing Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, distinct from any other fiscal statutes, neither the Electricity Act, 2003 nor any Rules or Regulations confer any power on the Assessing Officer for reopening or revision of the assessment. There is not even a power conferred for correction of mistake. It is obvious that exercise of power vested on the Assessing Officer ends with finalisation of the assessment. Power to modify the assessment is vested only with the appellate authority under Section 127. Since there is no provision enabling a reopening, revision or rectification of the assessment, the impugned proceedings is one issued without jurisdiction, is the contention. 8. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board is also not in a position to point out any provision conferring power on the Authorised Officer for reopening or reassessment or rectification. Even assuming that the impugned proceedings is only to the extent of correcting a mistake occurred in the assessment and that what is demanded is only the amount which escaped assessment, can such rectification be sustained, is the question. I am persuaded to concur with the view that even assuming that there occurred a mistake apparent on the face of the record, it cannot be rectified by the Assessing Officer, unless power is conferred through any statutory provisions. I am persuaded to concur with the view that even assuming that there occurred a mistake apparent on the face of the record, it cannot be rectified by the Assessing Officer, unless power is conferred through any statutory provisions. Even in cases where specific provisions are provided in fiscal statutes, this court had repeatedly held that, exercise of the power of rectification should be limited only to the extent of error apparent on the face of records. In the case of Section 15 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, a Division Bench of this court in Kurian George V. Tahsildar ( 1995 (2) KLT 457 ) held that, once an original assessment is made under the provisions of the Act, a subsequent notice proposing assessment by adopting another method cannot be sustained, even if it is found that the latter method would yield more tax than the earlier one. In the said case this court found that, the mistake was found out not by the assessing authority, but it was sought to be rectified on the basis of a report of an auditor who found that the alternative method should have been adopted instead of the one already adopted by the assessing authority. It was held that the mistake pointed out by an Auditor is not a glaring, obvious or self evident one, which falls within the ambit of an error apparent on the face of records, contemplated under Section 15, which enables rectification. This court held that, at the time of earlier assessment all materials were available before the authority and the authority was supposed to be aware of all the materials. Once the tax is assessed by adopting one of the methods envisaged under the statutory provision, he cannot review or reopen the assessment on the ground that there was a mistake, on the basis of advise of the auditor. It is also held that under the power to rectify a mistake apparent on the face of record, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the advise of any superior authority. It is also held that under the power to rectify a mistake apparent on the face of record, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the advise of any superior authority. This court held that, a mistake apparent on the face of record means an arithmetic error, clerical error, slip or inadvertent omission or in the case where latter enactment enables authority to modify the original assessment or in the case where an earlier assessment was made not on application of any valid principles of law. But the assessing officer has no authority to rectify any mistake by taking an alternative view when two views are possible or when under the latter view it is found that more amount could have been assessed. The mistake envisaged as apparent from the record should be a mistake which is not discovered by reasoning on examining arguments on points of law or on facts. This court emphatically held that reopening or review of assessment is not permissible if the relevant statute does not confer such power on any authority. 9. In the case at hand, pursuant to an inspection conducted, penalty was imposed alleging unauthorised use of electricity, on the basis of the allegation that the connection was unauthorizedly extended to another premises. The assessment of electricity charges payable was computed at twice the rate of fixed charges for the additional unauthorised load and at the proportionate energy charges on the unauthorised load payable. In the impugned proceedings, the Assessing Officer is now proposing to adopt another method of assessment, that too on the basis of directions of the Audit Officers, on the premise that unauthorised extension ought to have been charged at the Tariff provided for authorised temporary extensions under LT VIII. An identical situation has been dealt with by this court in the decision in J.D.T. Islam Orphanage Committee V. The Assistant Engineer, KSEB and others (2007 (3) KHC 6). Referring to Regulation 26 of the erstwhile 'Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy', this court held that, in the absence of any provision enabling the Board to levy energy charges under LT VIII Tariff for unauthorised extension, billing at penal rates on the basis of connected load, on a daily basis is impermissible. This court observed that LT VIII Tariff is meant for temporary extensions and is applicable only to temporary extensions taken from the consumers premises. This court observed that LT VIII Tariff is meant for temporary extensions and is applicable only to temporary extensions taken from the consumers premises. There the Tariff is computed on fixed charge per KW of connected load, per day, in addition to application fee and testing fee. Under such temporary extensions there is no measurement of the quantity of energy by a separate meter, because the consumption is recorded in the meter installed at the main premises itself. The charges are limited to the extent of load covered by the temporary extension and limited to the period of such temporary extensions. The said tariff provided for authorised extensions cannot be made applicable to unauthorised extensions, is the findings. This court found that the term 'respective tariff' under Regulation 42(d) denotes only the tariff at which the quantity of supply at the main premises is billed. Therefore, penalisation on the basis of charges leviable for temporary extensions was held to be unsustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the above decision was confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 607/2008 (judgment dated 05.07.2012) by a Division Bench of this court. Therefore it is evident that the levy of charges under LT VIII Tariff in the case of unauthorised extension is not sustainable. 10. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that, the legal position settled as above will lead to an anomalous situation where a consumer indulging in unauthorised extension of the connection provided to him can be charged only with less amounts than the charges payable by another consumer taking temporary extension in an authorised manner. As held in J.D.T. Islam's case (cited supra) the Tariff under LT VIII is provided for authorised temporary extensions for short spell by enabling payment of fixed charges on the additional connected load, whereas in the case of unauthorised extensions the penal assessment is made for unauthorised use of electricity for a considerably long period at the rate applicable at two times, as envisaged under Sub Section 5 of Section 126. Therefore the charges levied for temporary extensions on daily rental basis cannot be adopted for imposing penalty when unauthorised extension is detected. Therefore the charges levied for temporary extensions on daily rental basis cannot be adopted for imposing penalty when unauthorised extension is detected. The decision in J.D.T.'s case confirmed by the Division Bench will squarely apply, since the provisions contained in Electricity Act, 2003 and the supply code 2005 and the KSEB terms and conditions of supply are in 'pari materia' with the provisions contained in the erstwhile 'Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy'. 11. Conclusions on the basis of the above discussions is that, the 2nd respondent is not empowered to revise, reopen or rectify the assessment of penalty once finalised under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003, especially on the basis of an instruction issued by the Audit Officers, because of lack of jurisdiction conferred under the statute enabling such revision, reopening or rectification. Further the 2nd respondent cannot impose penalty at the rate applicable to LT VIII Tariff on the basis that unauthorised extension was detected at the time of inspection. Therefore it is held that Exhibit P11 is unsustainable in law, and hence the same is hereby quashed. 12. It is made clear that challenge against Exhibit P3 order on the basis of the contention that the inspection was conducted not by the Authorised Officer, is declined because of the fact that no such contention was raised at the time of finalisation of the assessment and because of the fact that the amount of penalty was already remitted without any protest. However it is made clear that the legal question regarding authority to conduct inspection has not been adjudicated and decided in this judgment.