THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.32220 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 in issuing the Demand Notice bearing No.4393/C1/2011 – 2012/1, dated 08.07.2011, to the petitioner in relation to its property bearing Door No.12-15-39, Ward No.10B, P.J.N. Road, Vijayawada –1, as illegal, arbitrary and against the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 30.03.2011. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is a Society involved in social activities for the welfare of its members and the public at large. It is the owner of property situated at Door No.12-15-39, Ward No.10B, P.J.N. Road, Vijayawada –1. The building was assessed by respondent No.1 for payment of property tax duly fixing the property tax at Rs.3,994/- and the same was paid by the petitioner to respondent No.1. Thereafter, the tax was enhanced by respondent No.1 from Rs.3,994/- to Rs.5,983/- in the year 2008. Respondent No.2 issued G.O.Ms.No.88 dated 05.03.2011 duly deleting Rules 9 to 11 from the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990. As a consequence of issuing G.O.Ms.No.88, respondent No.2 issued another G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 26.03.2011, constituting respondent No.3 to provide assistance and technical guidance to all the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the state of Andhra Pradesh for proper assessment and revision of property tax. After constitution of respondent No.3 Board, respondent No.2 issued another G.O.Ms.No.117 dated 30.03.2011, duly approving the work plan of respondent No.3 for the year 2011 – 2012. Thereafter, respondent No.1 again increased the property tax for the property of the petitioner vide the impugned notice contrary to the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.117. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that with regard to the increase of property tax a board was constituted and Work Plan of Andhra Pradesh State Property Tax Board for the year 2011 - 2012 was prepared and approved, which was appended to G.O.Ms.No.117 of Municipal Administration and Urban Development (TC.1) Department, dated 30.03.2011; that the tax for the property of the petitioner has not been assessed in terms of paragraph Nos.1-2 and 1- 3 of the Work Plan appended to G.O.Ms.No.117 and hence, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contended that the impugned notice is only a show- cause notice, whereunder the petitioner was called upon to give an explanation; that the petitioner had not filed any objections under Section 220 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955; that the revision filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 was rejected; that therefore, an appeal lies to the District Court; and hence, she prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Ordinarily this Court would not interfere with a show-cause notice when an opportunity is given to the petitioner calling for explanation. As seen from the allegations in the affidavit, against the impugned notice dated 08.07.2011, the petitioner filed a revision before respondent No.1 and the same was rejected. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while assessing the tax for the property in question the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.117 has not been followed. The said contention can be raised by the petitioner in the appeal that may be filed by it before the District Court. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies available to it under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J December 29, 2011 AMD/MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.32220 OF 2011 December 29, 2011 AMD/MD