THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A. No.13 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: The appeal is ﬁled against the judgment in C.M.A.No.3 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 2. The appellants are assessees. The property belonging to the appellant was assessed to pay tax and from 01.04.2001 it was sought to be enhanced. 3. The appellant herein is questioning the notice issued by the respondent on 12.12.2006 enhancing the tax to Rs.17,114/-. Earlier on 01.04.2001 when the tax was sought to be enhanced, the appellant ﬁled appeal in CMA No.572 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, questioning the enhancement and the said appeal was allowed and as against that the Corporation has carried the matter in appeal to the High Court in C.M.S.A.No.98 of 2005, and the High Court conﬁrming the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, held that the assessment is not proper and as against that the matter was carried to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has directed that the assessment books and objections shall be considered and thereafter, the present notice was given for enhancing the tax. The lower Court has dismissed the same. 4. The point for consideration is whether the enhancement of the tax is legal and valid? 5. POINT: The contention raised before the lower Court was that there were no rents realized from the premises and the receiver was appointed and in spite of it, the tax was enhanced; the building was in a dilapidated condition and consequently the enhancement is not valid. Evidently, the enhancement was sought on the basis of zonal regulation, plinth area and also the rental values. It is not in dispute that as per the directions of the Supreme Court, the records were made available and the objections were also called for. The grounds of appeal before the lower Court do not show that there was any error in determining the extent of the area or in determining the rental value as per the zonal regulations. It cannot be forgotten that without there being any realization of income from the property or not, the Municipal taxes have to be paid. No provision of law granting exemption was brought to the notice of the lower Court or this Court. The grounds of appeal are very vague and the matter has been decided by the Corporation as per the directions of the Supreme Court. Though the lower Court has considered that the area of the building is 715.40 square yards and there are several rooms and it is a commercial complex, even the representation given to the Corporation objecting the enhancement does not disclose as to what was the total rent derived from the entire building. The contention is only with regard to 1st floor. Though the claim is said to be made for demolition, as being old one, no steps have been taken by the appellant. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts and when the assessment of the tax was based on zonal regulations and records maintained by the Municipality after due notiﬁcation, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. The additional evidence sought to be produced in C.M.S.A.No.98 of 2005 is also cannot be looked into at this stage. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:24-11-2011 INL