JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. The petitioner - a hospital, has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the 1st respondent herein, by which, building tax with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, was sought to be demanded on a portion of a Nursing School, which was later converted as part of the hospital. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as under: The petitioner had constructed a building in 1990s. Out of the above building, the major portion was being used as the hospital. However, a portion of 435.2 square meters was being used as a Nursing School. As regards the said Nursing School, the petitioner had obtained the benefit of exemption from payment of tax available with reference to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. There is no dispute also to the fact that the Nursing School was being run by the petitioner. 3. Later, the 1st respondent herein carried out certain inquiries in that regard and came to the finding that the petitioner has shifted the Nursing School from the building where the said school was being run, enjoying exemption as above, to other premises. Therefore, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner, culminating in the issue of Ext.P4 order seeking to demand building tax as against the afore area of 435.2 square meters also, which was admittedly the main part of the hospital. The petitioner points out that the finding in Ext.P4 as regards the shifting of the Nursing School was correct. However, it is pointed out that the tax demanded through Ext.P4 was applying the rate applicable under the statute during 2018. Pointing out the above irregularity, though an application for rectification was filed before the 1st respondent, the said application stood rejected by Ext.P6 order dated 08.05.2018 issued by the 1st respondent herein. 4. It is in the afore circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent herein dated 26.07.2018, seeking to sustain the impugned action. 6. I have heard Smt. Sangeetha Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sayed M. Thangal, the learned Government Pleader. 7. It is in the afore circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent herein dated 26.07.2018, seeking to sustain the impugned action. 6. I have heard Smt. Sangeetha Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sayed M. Thangal, the learned Government Pleader. 7. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as regards the rate of tax payable with reference to the portion of the building, which is now sought to be assessed by Ext.P4 on account of the subsequent developments by which the petitioner became dis-entitled for the benefits under Section 3 of the Act. It is seen that the petitioner had been granted an exemption as against the portion of the building which was being used as the Nursing School - 435.2 square meters. It is this portion, that is now sought to be assessed by Ext.P4 on account of the shifting of the Nursing School. Such assessment by Ext.P4 is made with reference to the provisions of Section 3B of the Act, which reads as under : “3B. Misuse of exemption by the assessee- Where any building which has been exempted from payment of building tax under the provisions of this Act, is found to be used in any manner which would nullify the eligibility for exemption, the owner shall be liable to be assessed and to pay building tax under this Act together with penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of completion of construction of the building. Provided that no such assessment shall be made without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” (Underlining supplied) A reading of the above provision would show that as regards buildings that were exempted under Section 3 of the Act for payment of building tax, if it is subsequently found that the building became ineligible for the exemption, the owner of the building is liable to pay building tax as regards that portion also along with interest from the date of completion of construction of the building. Therefore, the crucial date, even under Section 3B, is the “date of completion of construction of the building.” Even the charging Section 5 of the statute, provides for imposition of tax with reference to the completion of construction of the building in question. Therefore, the crucial date, even under Section 3B, is the “date of completion of construction of the building.” Even the charging Section 5 of the statute, provides for imposition of tax with reference to the completion of construction of the building in question. The liability as well as non-liability to tax under Section 5 is also with reference to the completion of the building prior to the appointed day and thereafter. In other words, with reference to the provisions of the Act, tax is being demanded with reference to the date of completion of the building in question. 8. In this case, admittedly, the building, including the portion that was originally exempted, was constructed way back in 1990s. It might be true that as regards the portion of 435.2 square meters, there was no imposition of tax on account of the exemption extended originally. But when such exemption is being withdrawn, it goes without saying that the tax can be demanded only with reference to the date of completion of the building - that is, with reference to the rate of tax, which existed at that point of time. The only difference to be noticed is the interest to be paid – 12% in cases where exemption is withdrawn under Section 3B – in comparison to the interest payable in regular assessments @ 6% under Section 19 of the Act. A perusal of Ext.P4 shows that the tax is being demanded with reference to the rate that was in existence at the point of time when Ext.P4 was issued. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand allowed as under: i. Ext.P4 issued by the 1st respondent would stand set aside. ii. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders by imposing tax on the portion of the building now being sought to be assessed (435.2 square meters) with reference to the rate of tax that was in existence at the point of time when the construction of the building was completed. iii. The learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner has subsequently added additional portions to the building in question. It is clarified that this Court has not considered the tax liability as regards any such additional construction made by the petitioner.