JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition, which was earlier filed as E.A. No. 607/1996 before Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and upon its abolition in 1998, was transferred to this Court and registered as writ petition, has been filed by the petitioners, M/s. K.B. Enterprises and its partner Gyan Prakash Mittal assailing order dated 22.06.1996 passed by Assistant Director(Civil Line Zone), Land and Building Tax Department, Jaipur whereby the petitioners have been reassessed for payment of land and building tax for two reasons that earlier land and building of the petitioners were treated as residential in nature whereas it was commercial in nature and further it was earlier considered as load bearing structure but later it was found to be framed structure. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner, M/s. K.B. Enterprises is a partnership firm, which owns the land and building situated on Plot No. 143A, B, C and D, Near Devi Kunj, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, Jaipur measuring 1466.25 sq. yards. It entered into a Lease Agreement vide Registered Lease Deed dated 28.07.1991, whereby it granted lease hold rights to M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal, another Partnership Firm for a period of 50 years w.e.f. 15.04.1990 on yearly rent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. By the said lease deed, the leassee agreed to pay and discharge all rates, taxes and assessments and impositions as also to maintain the premises clean, tidy and healthy. Upon service of an appropriate notice, M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal submitted entire information in respect of land and building along with a valuation report of Shri G.L. Nag, an approved Valuer. Respondents sought to assess the value of land on the basis of its purchased price to which the assessee objected and claimed the same to be valued as an industrial land as the land and building was being put to use as a factory. The Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department rejected this claim and valued the land on the basis of its purchased price and stamp duty vide order dated 10.02.1992. Similarly, the value of building was determined by Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department at Rs. 33,03,600/- after making certain variations to the valuation proposed by the assessee’s valuer at Rs. 32,11,474/-. M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal accepted the assessment and deposited the tax demanded for 1988-89 to 1991-92(Rs. Similarly, the value of building was determined by Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department at Rs. 33,03,600/- after making certain variations to the valuation proposed by the assessee’s valuer at Rs. 32,11,474/-. M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal accepted the assessment and deposited the tax demanded for 1988-89 to 1991-92(Rs. 78,612/-) and also exercised an option under Section 3(1B) of the Rajasthan (Lands and Buildings Tax) Act, 1964(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for payment of one-time tax being a sum of Rs. 4,51,256/-. The Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department after examining the matter, accepted the option and issued a certificate bearing No. 960 dated 17.10.1992 and exempted the assessee from all future liability. Thereafter, a notice under Section 15-B of the Act in Form LBT-10 was issued to M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal on the ground that by an error, the value of building was determined treating it to be a load bearing structure, although it was a framed structure. Accordingly, the value was sought to be modified from Rs. 33,03,600/- to Rs. 50,24,500/-. Another Notice dated 03.05.1994 was issued to M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal, in response to which the said firm filed its Reply Letter dated 15.06.1994 along with a Certificate from its Architect, M/s. Aayojan and refuted that the building was a wholly framed structure. However, the Respondents issued yet another Notice dated 28.09.1995 seeking to re-value the building at Rs. 55,64,726/-. The assessee filed its detailed objection by letter dated 02.03.1996. However, the respondents then issued a fresh amended Show Cause Notice under Section 11(1) of the Act proposing to value the land at Rs. 45,16,050/- and building at Rs. 45,64,700/-. The assessee filed its objections along with various documents. The respondents rejected all objections and re-framed the value of the land and building at Rs. 1,00,80,750/- as on 01.04.1991 vide order dated 22.06.1996. Hence, feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Mr. Anant Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the petitioners have exercised option of 'One Time Tax', which was accepted by Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department, that assessment order could not be reopened, unless there was an extension or enlargement of the land and/or building. Learned counsel has submitted that no such reassessment could have been made even in cases of actual/deemed transfer of land and building. Learned counsel has submitted that no such reassessment could have been made even in cases of actual/deemed transfer of land and building. Learned counsel has supported his arguments by citing judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in East India Hotels Ltd. and another Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 2001 Raj. 286 . 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that no finalized assessment could be reopened merely on the basis of Audit Report after exercise of One Time Tax by the assessee. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgment of this Court in Asstt. Director Land & Building Taxes & Another Vs. M/s. R.S. Sharma & Another, WLC Raj. 2005 (4) 89. Reliance has also been placed upon another judgment of this Court in Kamal Auto Industries Coach Works Vs. The State of Rajasthan and anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3845/2000 decided on 03.08.2005). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that no assessment of land and/or building could have been made in the hands of its actual owner where the same have been leased out for a period of more than 50 years in view of Section 2 (10)(d). Lastly, it is argued that no notice under Section 15B of the Act has been issued to the petitioners, who were served merely with a notice under Section 11(1) of the Act. All notices under Section 15-B were served upon M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal to along respondents to the same. 5. Mr. B.C. Chirania, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioners have remedy of appeal and revision under Sections 16 and 19 of the Act against assessment order. The petitioners have directly approached this Court challenging order of assessment, therefore, writ petition cannot be maintained on this ground alone. 5. Mr. B.C. Chirania, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioners have remedy of appeal and revision under Sections 16 and 19 of the Act against assessment order. The petitioners have directly approached this Court challenging order of assessment, therefore, writ petition cannot be maintained on this ground alone. He argued that even though one time tax assessment order is required to be honoured by the Department, but in this case one time tax assessment had to be revised because its basis has been found to be wrong for two reasons, firstly, the land and building in question were commercial in nature and secondly, building in question was a framed structure and not load bearing structure, which fact has been admitted by the petitioners themselves in their reply to the notice before the Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department. 6. Having heard the rival submissions, I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the material on record. 7. At the outset it may be noted that submission of the petitioners with regard to the fact that assessment cannot be reopened on account of change of ownership, as in the present case registered lease deed having been executed by the petitioners in favour of M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal, cannot be allowed to be raised in the present case. Even the respondents have not framed reassessment order on the basis of alleged change of ownership or execution of lease deed in favour of M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal. The premise on which the petitioners have been reassessed is that the land and building in question were in commercial in nature and the building was not a load bearing structure but it was a framed structure. Therefore, arguments of the petitioners have to be examined in that limited scope. 8. Division Bench of this Court in East India Hotels Ltd. and Another(supra) relied by the petitioners proceeds on the premise that levy of land and building tax is not a tax on assets of a person and thus not a personal tax. In view of Entry 49 of List II, the State Legislature is not competent to levy tax on the aggregate value of the assets of a person and thus no personal tax on the owner of the property is liable to be imposed. In view of Entry 49 of List II, the State Legislature is not competent to levy tax on the aggregate value of the assets of a person and thus no personal tax on the owner of the property is liable to be imposed. Therefore, the question of ownership of the property is irrelevant for levy of tax under the Act of 1964. The Division Bench in that context has held that initiation of fresh assessment proceedings in respect of the land held by the previous owner, who has exercised the option in terms of one time tax scheme prescribed by Section 3(1B), even though the certificate exempting the aforesaid land from the future tax liability had been issued by the competent officer of the department, would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench further held that the State of Rajasthan and its Officers are estopped from carrying out such proceedings for fresh assessment of the subject land again for depositing one time tax as the option for depositing one time tax was made by the previous owner and other similarly situated citizens on the basis of various exhortations made by them inviting people at large to make the aforesaid payment and get their land and building exempted from tax for all times to come. 9. The fact situation in the present case is entirely different. The assessment order in the present case has been revised not because of change of ownership, but owing to two factual errors, which have been pointed out by audit party, namely that the building was not a load bearing structure, but it was framed structure and secondly land and building were not residential in nature, but commercial in nature. 10. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners upon the judgment of this Court in Asstt. Director Land & Building Taxes & Another Vs. M/s. R.S. Sharma & Another (supra), but that case was based on entirely different facts wherein the department proceeded under Section 15B of the Act, which is related to escaped assessment. In fact, this Court in that case relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Eastern News Paper Society Vs. Director Land & Building Taxes & Another Vs. M/s. R.S. Sharma & Another (supra), but that case was based on entirely different facts wherein the department proceeded under Section 15B of the Act, which is related to escaped assessment. In fact, this Court in that case relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Eastern News Paper Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) wherein it was held that the opinion of an internal audit party on a point of law cannot be regarded as ‘information’ for the purpose of reopening an assessment. Here in the present case, what has been pointed out by the audit party is not a point of law, but factual aspect on the basis of which earlier one time tax assessment order was founded. Factual basis of the earlier assessment order, which has been found to be incorrect by the audit party is that the land and building in question were commercial in nature and that the building in question was having framed structure and not load bearing structure. Thus, the respondents have not acted on mere audit objection. All this was again got verified by the department by getting the building in question inspected from the Inspector, i.e. Departmental Technical Officer, Deputy Director(Valuation). The assessing officer, while doing so, has also relied upon the inspection so carried out. In fact, the contention of the petitioner-assessee before the Assessing Officer/Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department was that building was not a load bearing structure, but it was a composite structure. The Technical Officer of the Department namely Deputy Director(Valuation) had inspected the building in question. The assessing officer has noted his observation that from the stand of the assessee nature of the building being of composite structure is undisputed. 11. Judgment of this Court in Kamal Auto Industries Coach Works(supra) was also based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in East India Hotels Ltd. and Another (supra) wherein it was held that power of reassessment or amendment of assessment cannot be invoked by the assessing authority in cases where the lands and buildings have been exempted from future tax liability on account of one time tax payment in terms of Section 3(1B) of the Act. 12. Earlier one time tax assessment was made by the assessing officer on 10.02.1992. 12. Earlier one time tax assessment was made by the assessing officer on 10.02.1992. Revised assessment order is again a one time assessment order on a different premise. The petitioners exercised option for one time tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act by submitting challan/cheque on 27.03.1992. One Time Tax Certificate was issued on 17.10.1992. Another notice was issued to performa respondent in November, 1993 calling upon him to appear on 17.11.1993 by appending a note at the bottom of the notice that valuation of the building has erroneously been assessed in assessment order as being of nature of framed structure and therefore, the matter was required to be reopened with reference to Section 15B proposing valuation of the land and building in question as on 01.04.1991 to be Rs. 59,48,000/-. In Asstt. Director Land & Building Taxes & Another Vs. M/s. R.S. Sharma & Another (supra), notice for reopening of the case itself was served after three years, which is the prescribed period of limitation as per Section 19 of the Act. This Court in that case held that notice under Section 15B of the Act could not be issued after prescribed limitation period of three years. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that notice under Section 15B of the Act has not been served upon the petitioners, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that this provision was specifically mentioned in hand written note in the notice issued to the petitioners. Rule 15(2) of the Rajasthan Lands and Buildings Tax Rules, 1965 provides that no notice under sub-rule (1) of the rules for reassessment and tax escapement shall be issued after expiry of twenty years from the end of the year for which tax has escaped assessment or has been wrongly or incorrectly assessed. Here in the present case, notice appears to have been issued within one year of the earlier assessment. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.