THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No.45 of 2006 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed against the order dated 29-07-2005 of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in M.A.No.85 of 2003. The appellant herein is the owner of the premises bearing No.3-6- 587/407, situated at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. The respondent/Municipal Corporation issued a demand for payment of Rs.10,947-16 paise as arrears of tax up to 31-03-2002 and also current demand of tax for the year 2002-2003 including the penalty. The tax was said to be @ 3,062/-. The appellant has contended that though the tax existing prior to 1999 was Rs.3,062/-, the Municipality has introduced a self-assessment scheme and the appellant has submitted a self- assessment of tax for Rs.2,110/- and the said application has been received and therefore in view of the above self-assessment declared by the appellant, the collection of tax @ 3,062/- per annum is not legal. The learned Chief Judge did not accept the contention of the appellant. Evidently, what was demanded from the appellant the existing tax @ Rs.3,062/- which he was paying since 1999 is not a case of enhancement of tax or any other order passed by the Corporation. Merely asking for self-assessment does not mean that it is a final order binding on the Corporation. Unless and until the tax is varied, it is needless to say that the imposition of the tax on any existing building will be always by in the increase and not on the decrease and the purpose of revision of tax from time to time is only keeping in view the increase of the rental values of the premises. The premises in question is evidently located at Himayathnagar and from 1999 if the rental value is taken into consideration and the tax is fixed @ 3,062/- the self-assessment of reduced rental value and tax @ Rs.2,110/- is beyond reason and prudence and no Court can accept it. Therefore, the attempt of the appellant to subvert the demand notice for the arrears of the tax which was in existence and it has been paid is only abuse of process of appeal provided under Section.282 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. There is no question of law nor fact involved in this Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 06-09-2011 TSNR