HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No.56 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order in C.M.A.No.61 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, where-under the enhancement of the tax of the appellant from Rs.6,078/- to 33,569/- with effect from 2001 was considered and while considering the enhancement as legal, the lower appellate Court has found that the recovery can only be from the date of the enhancement order i.e., from 17.11.2005. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the lower appellate Court shows that the Corporation has given the reason that the measurements were not properly noted and the lower appellate Court also found that for not properly noted the measurements imposing the tax retrospectively and claiming the same as absurd and this clearly goes to show that enhancement itself is not correct. In fact self-assessment declaration is said to have been given by the appellant but the particulars are not placed as to what is the extent of the measurements given by the appellant and the tax. Evidently, after the year, 2001, the procedure for enhancement of the tax has been challenged and zonal regulations have been introduced and the plinth area and the location of the property have to be taken into consideration. Before the lower court there is no dispute about the zonal regulations and the procedure adopted by the Municipality in fixing the tax for each zone depending upon the nature of the use of the property. Evidently, the appellant is a Cinema theatre, which is a commercial activity. Therefore, the Corporation has fixed the tax. The tax has been enhanced because of the difference of the measurements, which were noted incorrectly in the earlier order and subsequently, fresh measurements were taken and the tax was enhanced. Therefore, the Corporation has got every right to correct an error and in fact, there is no effort made by the appellant before the lower appellate Court or before this Court to show that the measurements as altered by the Corporation are irregular. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when the tax was enhanced by following the due procedure as provided under the Municipal Corporation Act, it cannot be found to be fault. Further-more, the lower appellate Court also granted relief that the enhancement shall be only from the date of order i.e., 17.11.2005 but not retrospectively from 2001. There is no error. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there are no merits in the appeal 3. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cots. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:12.09.2011 INL