THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.11 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed against the order dated 31-10- 2007 in C.M.A.87 OF 2007 on the file of the court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada whereunder the enhancement of tax from Rs.803-20 paise per half year to Rs.5,086/- w.e.f. 01-04-2001 was questioned. As can be seen from the facts of this case originally questioning the enhancement, the appellant filed C.M.A.554 of 2002 and it was allowed and an appeal was preferred to the High Court and in CMSA 180 of 2004 this court dismissed the appeal. In some other tax matters the Supreme Court while disposing of SLP(Civil) No.11249 of 2004 directed the Corporation to decide the objections of the assessees afresh and permit the assessees to inspect the assessment books and to file fresh objections. Accordingly, a notice was served to the appellant on 11-08-2006 and objections were filed. Without considering the objections the tax was fixed again at the same rate and hence the present appeal. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in dismissing the appeal is legal and sustainable? POINT:- Before the lower court, it was contended by the Corporation that only the objection raised was with regard to measurements and usages and notice was given and the son of the appellant participated and fresh measurements were taken. Therefore, an opportunity was given to the appellant to hear the objections. The appellant is said to have been given permission to inspect the assessment registers but not done so. It is further contended that premises was occupied by owner and 40% deduction is to shown for “owner occupation”. Evidently, the ground floor portion was found to be in occupation of the owner and as per the particulars of the measurements furnished by the counsel for the respondent at the time of hearing in the presence of the son of the appellant the measurements were taken and the age of the building was also noted and at that time no objection was taken with regard to measurements. Further more, the age of the building was also taken into consideration and part of it only a residential and part of it is evidently non- residential. In two portions there were tenants and one portion there is the land-lord. The statement shows that necessary deductions were given. Therefore, on facts it was found by the lower court that there was no error or mistake in arriving at the tax and the respondent has followed the procedure and on question of fact there are no grounds to interfere and there is no question of law involving any decision by this Court. Therefore, for the above reasons the appeal is to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 06-07-2011 TSNR