G. Yethirajulu, J.@mdashThe houses (total eight in number) referred to in the respective appeals belong to one family. The appellant is the owner
of all the houses. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Division, issued demand notices in 1991 dated nil to the appellant calling
upon her to pay certain amounts towards property tax for those houses situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The appellant being aggrieved by the
said demand notices preferred appeals viz., M.A. Nos. 595, 597, 598, 601, 602 and 603 of 1991 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes
Court, Hyderabad. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad disposed of those appeals on 30-8-1993 remanding the matters to the
respondent-Corporation with a direction to assess the property tax after giving opportunity to the owner of the building, as required u/s 220(2) of
the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (''the Act'' for brevity). The respondent-Corporation instead of complying with the directions of
the Court issued notices dated 1-2-1995 calling upon the appellant to pay the arrears of property tax for the premises in question. The appellant
preferred appeals before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad questioning the validity of the demand notices dated 1-2-1995 on
the ground that the Corporation failed to issue the requisite statutory notice u/s 220 (2) of the Act before assessing the property tax. The appellant
contended in those appeals that she was not given opportunity for filing her objections and hearing with regard to the quantum of tax for the
premises in question. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court allowed the appeals through his judgment dated 14-2-1995 observing that the
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation could not say that the directions given by the said Court on 30-8-1993 in M.A.No.
595, 597, 598, 601, 602 and 603 of 1991 were complied with. The Chief Judge accordingly remanded the matters to the Corporation with a
direction to assess the property tax afresh after complying with the statutory provisions of the Act.
2. In pursuance of the directions of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, the respondent-Corporation issued notices on 15-5-1995
requesting the appellant to attend the office on 20th May, 1995 at 11 a.m. for personal hearing along with copies of rent deeds and other
documents. The appellant instead of appearing before the respondent-Corporation filed appeals covered by M.A. No. 230 to 237 of 1995 before
the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, questioning the notices dated 15-5-1995 for the proposed assessment. The Chief Judge,
City Small Causes Court, dismissed the appeals through a common judgment dated 18-7-1995 observing that the appellant is not entitled to prefer
the appeals u/s 282 of the Act against the provisional fixation of the rateable value and the law does not provide for giving second opportunity to
the appellant for hearing. Being aggrieved by the common judgment of the first Appellate Court, the appellant preferred these appeals challenging
its validity and legality.
3. The appellant mainly contended that the appeals cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-filing of objections before the respondent-
Corporation, that the tax cannot be imposed with retrospective effect, and that the notices issued by the respondent-Corporation on 15-5-1995
directing her to appear for personal hearing on 20-5-1995 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 220(1) and (2) of the Act.
4. The respondent-Corporation issued demand notices in the names of the occupiers of the houses. Against those demand notices, the owner of
the houses Smt. P.R. Nappini filed the appeals and the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court disposed of the appeals remitting them to the
Corporation for fresh assessment after giving opportunity to the owner of the houses. Accordingly, the respondent-Corporation issued notices to
the appellant directing her to appear in person on 20-5-1995 at 11 a.m.
5. Section 220 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 reads thus:
220. Time for filing complaints against valuations to be publicly announced:--(1) The Commissioner shall, at the time and in the manner provided in
Section 218, give public notice of a day, not being less than twenty one days from the publication of such notice, on or before which complaints
against the amount of rateable value entered in the ward assessment book will be received in his office.
(2) In every case in which any premises have for the first time been entered in the assessment book as liable to the payment of property taxes, or in
which the rateable value of any premises liable to such payment has been increased, the Commissioner shall, as soon as conveniently may be after
the issue of the public notice under Sub-section (1), give a special written notice to the owner or occupier of the said premises specifying the nature
of such entry and informing him that any complaint against the same will be received in his office at any time within fifteen days from the service of
the special notice.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and the Rules made thereunder, where a building is constructed, or reconstructed, or some
structures are raised unauthorisedly it shall be competent to the assessing authority to levy property tax on such building or structure with a penalty
of ten per cent on the amount of tax levied till such unauthorized construction is demolished or regularised. A separate receipt for the penalty levied
and collected shall be issued.
6. No doubt Section 220(1) of the Act specifies that for issuing public notice a period of 21 clear days is mandatory. But, in the cases on hand, the
appellant did not question the earlier notices, which were served on her personally, except questioning the quantum of tax. There is no express
provision under the Act that assessee shall also be given 21 days time. Section 220(2) provides the maximum period of 15 days for receiving
complaints from the date of service of special notice. Having received the earlier notices, the appellant preferred appeals before the Small Causes
Court on the ground that she was not given an opportunity of hearing. The Court accordingly remanded the matters to the respondent-Corporation
directing to give an opportunity to the owner of the houses and to explain the circumstances under which she is not liable to pay the property tax as
demanded by the Corporation. Since these matters were remanded twice, he question of complying the formalities at every time does not arise.
The purport of Section 220 of the Act is to enable the public and the owner of the premises to place the material, if any, for reduction of the
rateable value in that area of premises. Sections 221 to 223 contemplated the procedure after issuing of special notice. The appellant did not
choose to place any material before the respondent and directly approached the Court without exhausting the statutory remedy with the
Corporation. Section 282(b) mandates that the appeal shall not be heard unless a complaint was made and disposed of by the Commissioner. The
appellant might have apprehended that she has to face lot of embarrassment by producing the rent deeds etc., therefore, she felt that absconding
from the hearing would be the best remedy to avoid the tax as much period as possible.
7. In the notices dated 15-5-1995 there was a mention that the appellant has to pay the tax from the year 1978. The learned Counsel for the
appellant submitted that the enhancement cannot be made with retrospective effect i.e., from the year 1978 and it shall be from the financial year
during which the assessment was made and complaint, if any, was disposed of.
8. The original assessment was made in the year 1991 and notices were served on the appellant. The remittance of the matters to the Corporation
for assessing the property after giving opportunity to the owner does not amount to fresh assessment. I therefore do not find any force in the
contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the assessment shall be made only from the year during which the latest assessment was
made and not with retrospective effect. The learned Counsel for the appellant cited the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Himayatnagar
Ratepayers Association v. Commissioner M. C., Hyderabad (1971) 1 An.WR 78 (DB), wherein this Court held that the assessment has to be
done before the end of the financial year in respect of which the tax was proposed to be imposed.
9. There is no dispute regarding this principle, but the said principle is not applicable to the case on hand as the assessment was made on a
direction to make fresh assessment by giving opportunity to the owner. The demand notices dated 15-5-1995 issued by the Corporation cannot
be treated as fresh assessment notices and the respondent-Corporation is entitled to assess the property from the year in which the initial demand
notices were issued.
10. The appellant was successful in running the litigation for a period of 12 years. On the basis of the statement given by the appellant that the
building was in occupation since 1978, the Corporation has mentioned in the notices that the tax has to be paid from the year 1978. The
Corporation is not entitled to assess the tax for the period as it likes and it is entitled only to impose the tax and collect the same from the financial
year during which the special notices were issued demanding the property tax. The respondent-Corporation therefore was wrong in directing, the
appellant to pay the property tax from the year 1978 and it is entitled to collect the tax from the period during which the first demand notices were
issued. I therefore do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that on remand of the matters fresh assessment
has to be made only from the year during which fresh assessment was made on the direction of the Court, and not of the previous years. Since the
Corporation made the fresh assessment on the direction of the first Appellate Court, the limitation does not continue to run when the Corporation
takes up the matter for disposal as per the direction of the appellate Court.
11. The learned Counsel for the appellant farther submitted that from the year 1999 to 2000 the appellant was regularly paying taxes by utilizing
the facility of self-assessment of the property. I do not wish to disturb the said demand and collection of the tax imposed on self-assessment. As
rightly observed by the first Appellate Court, since the appellant failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing before the respondent-
Corporation, I do not find any force in the contention of the appellant that the Corporation erred in making the assessment without giving
opportunity to the appellant.
12. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed in part with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to collect the property tax
from the financial year 1991 during which the first demand notices were issued. The respondent-Corporation is further directed that the self-
assessment made by the appellant and accepted by the Corporation shall not be disturbed until the Corporation proposes to revise the tax by way
of issuing a special notice for that purpose. Each party to bear its own costs.
