THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A. No.4 OF 2010 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, questioning the enhancement of the tax by the Corporation and while conﬁrming the enhancement the Principal Senior Civil Judge has directed the tax to be collected from April, 2007 instead of 01.04.2001. 2. The facts of the case are till 31.03.2001 the half yearly tax was Rs.1,849.25 ps., and by special notice it was enhanced to Rs.17,124/- with eﬀect from 01.04.2001 and the C.M.A.No.572 of 2002 was ﬁled before the Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and it was allowed. As against that, the matter was carried to the High Court and the order of the Senior Civil Judge was conﬁrmed and thereafter the matter was carried to the Supreme Court, where-under the appellant was directed to give an opportunity to inspect the assessment books and to consider the objections. Thereafter, the tax was ﬁxed at Rs.17,114/- with eﬀect from 01.04.2001. 3. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for collection of the tax from 01.04.2001? 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the tax was ﬁxed as per the rules and as per the directions of the Supreme Court, objections were given and the demand notice under challenge was only a consequence of the ﬁlinalisation of the tax. Evidently, it cannot be forgotten that the earlier tax, which was proposed to be enhanced was challenged and the appeal was allowed and it was conﬁrmed even in the Supreme Court. But, however, a direction was given to the appellant herein to give opportunity for inspection of the books and to consider the objections. Therefore, till the ﬁnal order is passed demanding the tax, which is agitated, it cannot be said that there is any valid order for collection of the tax, which was enhanced with effect from 01.04.2001. 5. The demand notice, which was given on 12.12.2006 is, therefore, a ﬁnal order passed for the ﬁnancial year and consequently it can have no retrospective eﬀect. This is precisely what has been laid down by the Division Bench in the decision reported in Himayatnagar Rate Payers Association Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1]. 6. It is to be noted that without a ﬁnalisation of the liability, there cannot be any enforceable order and tax to be collected with retrospective eﬀect cannot be considered. In fact, the scheme of the Municipal Corporation Act clearly goes to show that the objections have to be decided within ten days and there should not be any laches. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly considered the above aspects and in view of the above decision, the determination of the tax being fresh after the earlier assessment order being set aside. The appellant is entitled to recover the amount only from the said date of final determination of the tax. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:24-11-2011 INL [1] 1970 ALT 134