IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14376 of 1999 Between: B.Trisuryanarayana, S/o. late Sri Jagannadga Rao, Plot No.126, P.S.R.Colony, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Vizinagaram Municipality, Rep.by it's Commissioner, Vizianagaram, Vizinagaram District. ..... RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent in issuing the demand Notice No.6 dt.22.3.1999 claiming arrears of Property tax in respect of premises bearing Door No.14-4-16, Kalagatlavari Street, Vizianagaram, as illegal, void and arbitrary and set-aside the same and grant any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.GOPAL GOVIND NAIK Counsel for the Respondent : SRI E.SAMBASIVA PRATAP The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14376 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the building bearing Door No.14-4-16, situated at Kalagatlavari Street, Vizianagaram and the said building was leased out to the Life Insurance Corporation of India at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, which includes Rs.4,000/- for the amenities provided for fixtures and furnitures. While so, the Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipality, issued demand notice vide ROC No.6540/91/A4, dated 08.11.1998, stating that as per the judgment of this Court, the assessment has been made vide Assessment No.19186, for the period 1983-84 to 1998-99. It is further stated that the tax assessed is Rs.1,59,826/-, out of which, the petitioner had already paid Rs.63,628/- and the remaining amount of Rs.96,198/- was demanded to be paid on or before 28.02.1999, failing which, the arrears of tax will be collected along with 2% interest. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that against the said demand notice, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner and Appellate Authority, Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram (for short “Appellate Authority”), on 03.02.1999, which was received on 05.02.1999. It is stated that while the revision is pending before the Appellate Authority, another demand notice dated 22.03.1999 was issued by the respondent demanding to pay balance amount of Rs.96,198/- pertaining to the period 1983-84 to 1998-99. The petitioner questions the said demand notice, dated 22.03.1999, in this writ petition contending that as per the judgment of this Court in C.E. COOPER VS. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF HYDERABAD[1] if the amount of tax is not paid, the only course open to the Municipality is to recover the same under the Revenue Recovery Act and under the said Act, the amount, which is due, can be recovered within three years prior to the demand notice. Thus, it is stated that issuance of impugned demand notice prior to three years of the demand notice dated 08.11.1998 is illegal and arbitrary. 4. No doubt, this court by the aforesaid judgment held that the limitation for collection of tax is three years, but we are unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as the demand notice, dated 08-11-1998 discloses that demand of Rs.1,59,826/- is assessed as per the judgment of this Court alone. Further, the judgment of this Court is not placed by the petitioner. As the said assessment was made, pursuant to the judgment of this Court, there cannot be any justification on the part of the petitioner to avoid payment of tax. Admittedly, the petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs.63,628/- towards assessed tax. As the dispute with regard to assessment was pending, it was resolved only pursuant to the decision of this Court, as is evident from the demand notice dated 08.11.1998. However, as against the said demand notice dated 08.11.1998, a revision is filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and the same is pending and the impugned demand notice dated 22.03.1999 is only a consequential demand notice pursuant to the earlier notice, dated 08.11.1998. As the assessment under demand notice dated 08.11.1998 itself is a subject matter of revision, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct the respondent to consider and dispose of the said revision. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 20-07-1999, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.63,628/- which was already deposited. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping it open to the petitioner to advance all defences before the Appellate Authority, we dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to consider the revision filed by the petitioner on 03.02.1999, which was received on 05.02.1999, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 27th July, 2009 KL/PRV [1] 1997 (5) ALT 466 (D.B.)