THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.NO.49 OF 2009 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada challenging the order of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in setting aside the imposition of the tax holding that the procedure is not followed and therefore it is not valid. Under G.O.Ms.No.635 dated 27-08-2007 the Corporation was directed to implement the revised rates in respect of the non-residential properties w.e.f 01-10-2007 and thereafter the Corporation has published a G.O. after conducting survey of the prevailing rental value and a notification is said to have been published on 08-09-2007 calling for the objections, if any, within 15 days. Thereafter, some objections were filed and a final notification about the rental values have been published on 29-09-2007 revising the rates applicable to locality wise, zone wise and it was published in a local daily and also district gazette in R.C.No.183 of 2007. According to the Corporation, the rate payers association and also some assessees have made a representation to the Government on 30- 09-2007 and the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.864 dated 26-11-2007 fixing the ceiling of enhanced tax to be not more than 50% of the existing tax as on 30-09-2007. Therefore, keeping in view, the Corporation has fixed the taxes and all these appeals deal with the challenge of the above taxes. The main contention of the assessees is that the procedure for fixation of the rental value and also the publication was not valid and therefore the entire procedure in enhancing the tax is vitiated and G.O will not in any way dispense with the necessity of following prescribed procedure for fixing of the rental values. The learned counsel for the assessee/respondent contends that if the above said procedure is not followed, it cannot be valid. He relied on a decision reported in Shan Zahoor and others Vs. Vijayawada Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner ([1]) whereunder with regard to earlier enhancement of tax, if the mandatory provisions of fixing the rateable value in the wards and zones is not followed and if the objections were not heard, the process of taxation itself is vitiated. As against that judgment, the Corporation has carried the matter to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3103 and 3104 of 2006 has upheld the above judgment which relates to the assessment year 2001 but however they were not inclined to set aside the assessment. The assessees were given an opportunity to file the objections if not filed earlier and if any objections are pending they shall be disposed of. But, in this case such a situation does not arise. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has produced the district gazettes dated 08-09-2007 and 29-09-2007 whereunder the particulars of the zones, rental values were clearly published. Therefore, the municipality has followed the instructions of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.635 dated 27-08-2007 and the said rates have become final in course of the general revision. As can be seen from the record, in most of the cases the assessees were personally present; the nature of the user of the property was also noted and the measurements were also taken. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no opportunity given to the assessees before fixing of the rental value or applying the zonal regulations or determining the nature of the use of the property. After taking into consideration of all the above facts, the Corporation has fixed the existing rental value and enhanced the tax and none of the assessees could show that it exceeded 50% of the existing tax violating G.O.Ms.No.864 or earlier G.O.Ms.No.708 dated 21-09-2007 amending the Rules 9 and 10 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990 which is applicable to the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada. This is a statutory power exercised by the Government and it is needless to say that under Section 585(1) of the Act, the Government has got every power to make Rules for carrying out all or any of the purposes of the Act. By exercising such power only the said G.Os were issued by the Government and in fact Rules were also framed by such power only. In fact under Section 679-E of the Act, the Government has also got power to give directions from time to time which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. In the order which was challenged by the Government, it is quite clear that the learned Judge has not taken the notice of the fact that rental values have been notified and the procedure has been followed. This court can take judicial notice of the gazettes which were published and produced before this Court which clearly goes to show that the exercise and procedure as is required under the statute have been followed. Therefore, setting aside of the assessment by the learned judge holding that the procedure is not followed cannot be accepted. In this connection, it is useful to refer to a decision reported in Municipal Rate Payers Association, Anantapur and others Vs. State of A.P. Municipal Administration and Urban Development and others ([2]) whereunder the earlier G.Os issued by the Government directing municipalities to restrict the increase in the quantum of tax to 75% of the existing tax during the year 2002 was challenged as being violative of the Constitution and exercise of power by the Government taking away by the independence of the local bodies in fixing or levying the tax, the Division Bench has considered those aspects and found that there is no constitutional violation and the power exercised by the Government in issuing G.O. is valid and it has also taken into consideration that due process has been followed as asserted by the Municipality. Therefore, when once the right of the Government to issue the instructions restricting the enhancement of the tax is found to be constitutionally valid and when once the procedure as prescribed is proved to have been followed, I find that the order of the Court in setting aside the assessment is not valid. The Courts also cannot fail to take into consideration the increase of the rental values and also the frequent change of the user of the premises from residential to non-residential and in most of the cases the premises were apparently converted partial or total into non-residential purposes and when the staff has inspected and measurements were taken, the owners were present and signed them on the papers. Therefore, it is not open for them to question the same but, however, in none of the judgments the court below found that the user adopted by the Corporation is incorrect. Therefore, for all the above reasons, I hold that the assessment made by the Municipal Corporation is valid and the order of the lower court in setting aside the same on the ground that the Corporation has not followed the procedure under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955 is not valid and the judgment has to be set aside. The appeal is therefore liable to be allowed. Accordingly, CMSA is allowed by setting aside the order of the lower court and enhancement of tax made by the Corporation is found to be valid. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 24-08-2011 TSNR [1] 2004(4) ALT 781 [2] 2003(1) ALT 282 (D.B)