THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.58 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed against the order in C.M.A.41 of 2008 on the file of the court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The appeal was filed against the order of endorsement dated.18-01-2008 passed by the appellant herein enhancing the tax. The respondents herein are the owners of a building and originally the tax was Rs.2,219-55 paise and it was enhanced to Rs.6,500/- w.e.f 01-10-2007 . The respondents claimed to have submitted a revision and after the disposal of the said revision, tax was fixed w.e.f 01-10-2007 as per G.O.Ms.No.864 MA&UD dated 26-11-2007. The lower court found that the order is not proper and consequently allowed the appeal. The point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of the lower court in setting aside the order of imposition of tax is legal? POINT:- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that tax was fixed as per the instructions of the Government and the enhancement was 50%. It is useful to extract the para.12 of the judgment of the lower court as under: “the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the irrespective of ratable value and the revision of tax the Government has issued G.O directing the respondent to enhance 50% of tax, that itself speaks volumes that the tax in question has not been fixed having followed the procedure laid down under the provision of HMC Act. Even assuming for a moment that the tax has been enhanced by 50% of existing tax in these appeals the tax which was in existence prior to the filing of old CMAs has not been taken into consideration for revision of property tax. Therefore, on this ground also the order of assessment is not correct. This point is answered accordingly.” When once the tax was enhanced as per the instructions of the Government and not basing on any of the revisions or zonal regulations but as a policy the enhancement was uniformly applied to 50%. The said G.O was not questioned. If it is a case of quinquennial revision or on the basis of the zonal regulations or otherwise so much procedure has laid down under Sections 214 to 223 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act referred by the lower court have to be taken into consideration. As can be seen from the judgment in para.12, proceedings of the Municipal Corporation were also held and guidelines were fixed. The order of the lower court does not refer to the contention of the appellant as to the 50% flat enhancement and it does not deal as to whether the said directions of the Government are violative of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. There can be no doubt about the fact that there was increase of rental values and also amenities provided by the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court suffers from infirmity and the enhancement of tax cannot be said to be bad as it was in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.864 MA&UD dated 26-11- 2007. Accordingly the appeal is to be allowed. The point is therefore answered. In the result the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 01-04-2009 in C.M.A.No.41 of 2008 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Each party do bear their own costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 06-07-2011 TSNR