JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 2. Appellant challenges dismissal of his writ petition in which he challenged revenue recovery proceedings referable to demand under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the 'KBT Act', for short. As rightly noted by the learned single Judge, assessment proceedings was completed and demand made by the competent authority. The assessment was not challenged and that had become final. That being so, as held by this Court in Mother Superior, Congregation of Sisters of Charity v. Tahsildar, Mananthavady ( 1987 (1) KLT 841 ), a claim for exemption from payment of building tax on a ground referable to Section 3 of the KBT Act, cannot thereafter be raised. This position notwithstanding, looking into the materials, we see that the writ appellant/petitioner had actually conceded to the assessment inasmuch as after he was granted quarterly installment facility, he moved the office of the Revenue Minister and obtained an order for 12 monthly spread out of the installment relief. Even that was not complied with. Thereafter, the petitioner again got an order from the office of the Minister for Revenue letting him pay the total outstanding in eight installments. With all such installment facilities being extended even with the indulgence of the Government, not a penny was paid. The initiation of revenue recovery proceedings is, therefore, well founded and cannot be impeached on ground of any jurisdictional error or factual infirmity. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant made reference to the decision of this Court in Dream World Water Park (M/s.), Trichur v. Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk and Others ( 2013 (4) KHC 471 ) to point out that when an assessment order is vitiated by a mistake of fact, that could be visited. We have considered the contents of that precedent. That was a case where the writ petition was against the assessment order and the assessee had also moved the Government for exemption which was decided against the assessee by the Government. Therefore, the Government's decision refusing exemption was itself the subject matter decided through that case. The principle laid down in that precedent has no application to the facts of the case in hand. Therefore, the Government's decision refusing exemption was itself the subject matter decided through that case. The principle laid down in that precedent has no application to the facts of the case in hand. We are not impressed with the plea that the assessment order itself does not stand because the building belongs to educational institution. No such plea was projected. Exemption sought for before conclusion of assessment proceedings itself has become final. The learned single Judge was, therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition. We do not see any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the decision of the learned single Judge. This writ appeal, therefore, fails. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed.