THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.SA.No.5 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the assessment of tax by the respondents under the order dated 29.3.2005 in M.A.No.132 of 2005. 2. Heard Smt.B.Sneha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 3. The substantial question of law, which arises and as has been framed by this Court while admitting the appeal is that whether the lower appellate Court is justified in confirming the enhancement of municipal tax in multifolds of the existing tax, ignoring the provisions of Section 212 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘HMC Act’) as amended by the Act 20 of 1989 and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 13.4.2002. 4. Briefly stated the following are the facts, for considering the appeal. The appellant received notice dated 9.3.2005 under Section 220(2) of HMC Act assessing the gross annual ratable value of his premises at Rs.8,54,604/-, against the existing annual ratable value of Rs.1,100/-. Basing on the said annual ratable value, the respondent/Corporation claimed annual tax of Rs.2,49,202/- w.e.f. 1.4.2004. Admittedly at the personal hearing of the appellant on 28.3.2005, the appellant explained the legality in fixing the property tax and also submitted a letter on the same date stating that there are 6 tenants in the schedule mentioned premises and the appellants have been receiving monthly rentals of Rs.5,350/- only from all the tenants. However, according to the appellant, without considering the said explanation, the respondent passed the order dated 29.3.2005 fixing the annual tax at Rs.2,49,202/- w.e.f. 1.4.2004. 5. Questioning the legality and the correctness of the said order, the appellant preferred M.A.No.132 of 2005 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which ultimately upheld the assessment made by the Corporation by its order dated 30.8.2006. Assailing the said order, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 6. I have perused the assessment order passed by the authorities of the respondent-Corporation, the order passed in M.A.No.132 of 2005 and also the relevant material papers. 7. Now, the point for determination in this appeal is whether the assessment order dated 29.3.2005 fixing yearly tax at Rs.2,49,202/- w.e.f.1.4.2004 for the schedule mentioned premises belonging to the appellant, which was confirmed in M.A.No.132 of 2005 by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad is liable to be set aside in this appeal as illegal and contrary to Section 212 of the H.M.C.Act and G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 13.4.2002. 8. Perusal of the order passed by the respondent-Corporation fixing the yearly tax at Rs.2,49,202/- after having arrived at the yearly ratable value of the premises at Rs.8,54,604/- is not supported by any material. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Corporation has received the municipal tax of Rs.18,375/- from the appellant for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 vide receipt dated 8.9.2004 and subsequently enhanced the said tax multifold approximately 15 times, which cannot be said to be in accordance with Section 220(2) of the H.M.C.Act. Further as per G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 13.4.2002 the increase of property tax on account of revision cannot exceed 100% for non-residential buildings of more than 25 years old. Thus, absolutely there was no basis for the respondent-Corporation for enhancing the tax from Rs.18.375/- to Rs.2,49,202/-. Further the said enhancement is contrary to the provisions of Sec.220(2) of H.M.C.Act and also G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 13.4.2002, which is furnished by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal. 9. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.3.2005 passed by the respondent-Corporation enhancing the annual tax from Rs.18,375/- to Rs.2,49,202/- w.e.f. 1.4.2004, which was confirmed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in M.A.No.132 of 2005 is arbitrary and illegal and the same is set aside in this appeal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 23rd October, 2009 PNV