PANGANAMALA BUTCHI MANGAMMA Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the defendant, aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appeallate Court. The plaintiff, the Municipal Council, Visakhapatnam, filed the Suit O.S. No. 268 of 1963 for recovery of arrears of property tax for 1960-61 to 1962-63. The main point taken in the trial Court is that the enhancement of property tax by way of quinquennial revision was illegal. The trial Court agreed with the objections raised by the assessee and held that the revision of the property tax was not valid but gave a decree only for the recovery of the tax which the assessee was bound to pay under the original assessment as unamended. The defendant filed an appeal A.S. No. 50 of 1967 before the District Judge, Visakhapatnam contending that he is not liable to pay even the property tax as it originally stood. The plea taken by the assessee appears to be ingenious and it is as follows : When the tax was enhanced in the general revision, the original assessment disappears and gets merged into the enhanced property tax. If the enhancement is declared to be illegal, the original tax also ceases to exist. The lower appellate Court summarily rejected this contention as unsupported by either authority or principle. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant filed the above Second Appeal.

(2.) This very point was negatived by Sambasiva Rao, J., in Second Appeal Nos. 290, 510 and 518 of 1968 (26th September, 1969). The present Second Appeal was in fact admitted on the ground that the same point is raised as in S.A. Nos. ago and batch. The same learned Counsel who argued the point before Sambasiva Rao, J., again attempted to raise the same point before me. On a consideration of the arguments of the learned Counsel, I am not inclined to take a different view. I am not impressed with the point raised by the learned Counsel and I do not see any need to place the matter before a Division Bench.

(3.) Under the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act, property tax is determined under section 81 of the Act and section 82 prescribed the method of assessing the property. Section 83 lays down the general exemptions from the property tax. Once the property tax is levied, it is payable under section 86 at the end of every half year, except as provided in Schedule IV. Schedule IV contains the detailed rules for assessment of property tax. Rule 8 provides that the assessment books shall be completely revised once in every five years and also at any time between one complete revision and another if the State Government so directs. If there is any such revision, the tax payable under section 86 is subject to such revision. The learned Counsel for the appellant wants to say that on a reading of Rules 8, 9, 13 and 14, it appears as if the original assessment ceases to exist when once there is a revision of the tax. In one sense, I agree that when the property tax is revised, what is leviable is only the revised tax and r.ot the original tax. It is true that in this limited sense the revised tax takes the place of the original tax. But the real question which falls for decision is whether when the enhancement of tax by way of revision is set aside on the ground that it was contrary to the provisions of the Act, the original tax also is deemed to be wiped out. I do not see that there is any principle of law which supports such a view. When the enhancment is set aside by a Court, the result is that the enhancement alone is removed and not the original tax itself, for the objections raised before the Court are only as against the enhancement and not as against the original tax itself. It follows therefore, as a matter of logic that the substratum of the property tax remains as it was when the enhancement which was super-added is struck out or removed by the decision of the Court. It is not suggested in the instant case that the ground for declaring the enhanced tax is illegal on a ground which would go to the very root of the power of the municipality to tax the property itself. This is not a case where exemption of the property from tax is claimed. I am therefore, clear in my opinion that the result of striking out of the enhancement of the property tax is to maintain the original tax as it was. The assessee is therefore, liable to pay the original tax and I therefore, reject his contention as wholly unfounded.