1 Second Appeal no. 945.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 945 OF 2009 Murlidhar Dwarkadas Agrawal ... Appellant V E R S U S State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents ... Mr. P.S.Agrawal,Advocate for Appellant. Smt. V.A.More, A.G.P.for respondents. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 18TH DECEMBER, 2009 PER COURT 1] Heard. 2] There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant challenges the notice whereby he was called upon to pay N.A. Taxes. It was his contention that the property is located within Gaothan area, therefore, N.A. Taxes can not be recovered. It was further contended that N.A. Taxes could not be claimed with retrospective effect. 2 Second Appeal no. 945.09 3] Both Courts noticed that village map (Exh.45) shows that property in question is situated in the area of Hingoli Town and is not part of Gaothan area. Admittedly, it is situated within Sadarbazar area and is constructed house property. They constructed the house bearing No 3636, 3637 and 4285. No substantial question of law is noticed. The N.A. tax is claimed, from the period of construction was effected. Therefore, it can not be said that previous tax could not be asked for. In view of the concurrent findings, the appeal dismissed. ( V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.) MTK/