THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. 21296 of 2009 Dated. 07 –10-2009 Between: Shaik Buli Mastan …Petitioner Vs. The Narsapur Municipality, Rep., by its Commissioner, Narsapur, West Godavari District. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. 21296 of 2009 Oral order: (Per: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the demand in letter dated 08-07-2009 issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’). The respondent, by letter dated 08-07-2009, called upon the petitioner to pay property tax, water charges and D & O Trade license of Rs. 4,26,617-00; 12,720-00 and Rs.9,000-00 respectively. This letter is challenged on the ground that it falls foul of Section 91 of the Act and Rule 29 (3) to Schedule-II of the Taxation and Finance Rules made under the Act. Under Section 91 of the Act, property tax shall be levied every half year and shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in Schedule-II, be paid by the owner of the assessed premises within thirty days after the commencement of the half year. The said provision does not require issuance of a notice, before commencement of the each half year, calling upon the assessee to pay the property tax in question. All that Section 91 of the Act requires is that, once property tax is levied, it should be paid by the assessee every half year. Rule 29 to Schedule-II of the Act reads as follows: 29. (1) Where any tax not being a tax in respect of which a notice has to be served under Section 109 or in respect of which a direction has to be given under Rule 14, is due from any person, the Commissioner shall serve upon such person a bill for the sum due before he proceeds to enforce the provisions of Rule 30: Provided that all notices, bills (or) Directions referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be served on all the tax payers by the end of May for the first half year and by the end of November, for the second half year. (2) A notice under Section 109 and a bill under sub- rule (1) shall be signed by the Commissioner and shall contain--- (a) a statement of the period and a description of the occupation property or thing for which the tax is charged; and (b) an intention of the liability to be incurred in default of payment. (c) An intimation about charging a simple interest at the rate of 2% per mensum in case of failure to pay property tax within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the Bill. (3) Where a notice, bill or direction referred to in sub- rule (1) has not been served or given either in the year or half year in which the tax became due or in the succeeding year or half year, the tax for the year or half year first mentioned in this sub-rule shall not be recovered in the manner laid down in Rule 30: Provided that where the assessment books have been amended under Section 91-A the notice bill or direction, as the case may be, may be given either in the half year in which the amendment was made or in the succeeding half year. It is only where a notice, bill or direction referred to in sub-rule (1) has not been served or given either in the year or the half year, the tax for the year or half year first mentioned in the sub-rule shall not be recovered in the manner laid down in Rule 30. Rule 29 (1) postulates that, where any tax not being a tax in respect of which a notice has to be served under Section 109 or in respect of which a direction has to be given under Rule 14 is due from any person, the Commissioner shall serve upon such person a bill for the sum due before he proceeds to enforce the provisions of Rule 30. The impugned letter is in effect, the bill specified in Rule 29 (1) whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay property tax and other taxes due to be paid by him. Even otherwise, Rule 30 which provides for recovery of tax by distraint and sale, has no application since it is not even the case of the petitioner herein that the respondent has initiated steps for distraint or sale of the property in question. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Dated: 07-10-2009 Pvks