HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A. No.37 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the Judgment in A.S.No.6 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, where-under the appellant has questioned the special notice issued by the respondent in enhancing the tax from Rs.10,750/- to Rs.17,200/- with effect from 01.04.2002 in respect of his non-residential buildings and the same was dismissed. 2. It was contended that the tax was initially imposed in the year 2000 and the revisions are only for five years and the direction of the Government to increase the tax as per G.O.Ms.No.155 M.A., dated 08.04.2002 is not applicable and consequently, the special notice is not valid. The respondent contended that due procedure has been followed in enhancement of the tax; enhancement was necessitated due to the new construction of the first floor in the place of the old building; and a period of five years is only for general revision and for special revision no period is prescribed. Further, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.168 M.A., dated 18.04.2002 gave instructions to restrict the increase in the quantum of tax to 100% in respect of non-residential buildings more than 25 years ago and that 150% for those less than 25 years. But, thereafter, the Corporation has resolved to only enhance the tax at 60% and consequently the enhancement was done. The lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. Against that appeal, second appeal is filed. 3. The question is whether the Municipal Corporation can enhance the tax unilaterally without following the provisions under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short, ‘the Act’) and without any reasons? 4. It is not in dispute that the increase of the tax was by a special notice because of some additional constructions said to have been made by the appellant. Added to that the Government has also by G.O.Ms.No.168 M.A., dated 18.04.2002 has issued instructions about the increase of the quantum of the tax. The lower Court found that the appellant did not file any objections to the proposed enhancement and consequently, the appeal is not maintainable under Section 282 of the Act. On consideration of the material on record, it was found that the statutory requirement under Section 282 of the Act was not made before preferring the appeal. The lower Court found that the appeal is against the provisions of Section 282 (b) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Even otherwise the power of the Government to increase the tax cannot be disputed and this enhancement of tax was under a special notice and there is no material to show that the rental values are incorrect or that the services rendered by the Municipality are less and nature of utility of the building has been reduced. 5. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when the appeal before the lower Court itself is not maintainable and when there is no material to hold that the appeal was properly presented, the second appeal consequently does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:18.10.2011 INL