Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 1090 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 5	 1966 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No. 877 of 1962. B. R. L. lyengar	 N. J. Modi	 P. C. Bhartari and K. N.	 Desai for the appellant. N. Shroff	 for respondent No. 1. K. L. Hathiand section P. Nayar	 for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat	 J. This appeal	 by certificate	 arises out of one of the seventy Special Civil applications filed in the High Court of Gujarat by several rate payers challenging the Validity of the assessment of property tax made by the respondent Corporation under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act	 LIX of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant is the owner of an immovable property situate within the limits of the Corporation. Until March 31	 1961	 two kinds of taxes were being levied on buildings and lands situate within the Corporation 's municipal limits : (1) the general tax levied by the Corporation under the Act	 and (2) the urban immovable property tax levied under the Bombay Finance Act	 1932 by the State Government	 but collected on its behalf by the Corporation. At the request of the Corporation made in 1960	 an arrangement was arrived at between the Government and the Corporation where under the Government agreed not to levy the U.I.P. tax provided the Corporation increased the rate at which it was till then levying the property tax. Accordingly	 in January 1961 the Corporation passed a resolution in	creasing the rate of the property tax with effect from April 1	 1961 under the power reserved to it by section 127 of the Act. In 94 5 pursuance of the said resolution and in accordance with the raised percentage of the general tax the Corporation served on the appellant	 as also on the other rate payers	 bills and demand notices. In this appeal we are concerned with the bills and 	notices in respecter the assessment year 1962 63. The appellant	 as also certain other rate payers	 challenged the said bills and notices in their said writ petitions mainly on the grounds (1) that the Corporation had no authority to amend the rates with the object of including the said U.I.P. tax in the general tax so far levied by the Government under a different statute and given up by it under the said arrangement; (2) that the said bills and notices were illegal as the assessment book kept by the Cor poration was not in accordance with the rules made under the Act and was not authenticated by the Commissioner as required thereunder; (3) that sections 99	 123 and 129(c) of the Act were unconstitutional in that they suffered from Other vice of excessive	 delegation in so far as they did not fix the maximum rate at which the Corporation could levy the property tax	 and (4) that the said sections were also violative of article 19(1) (f) and article 31 as the tax was confiscatory in character. By its judgment dated May 5	 1966	 the High Court first dis posed of fifty two out of the said seventy writ petitions rejecting the contentions raised therein. There after the judgment under review separately disposed of the remaining 18 petitions	 including that of the appellant	 as	 besides the points raised in the said 52 writ petitions	 these 18 writ petitions raised some additional points. The High Court in this judgment did not deal afresh the points already disposed of by it in the larger group of writ petitions and based its judgment in respect of them on its earlier judgment dated May 5	 1966. In its judgment	 dated the May 5	 1966	 the High Court elaborately examined the scheme and the objects	 of the Act and the rules and came to the following conclusions : (1) that the Corporation need not maintain separate assessment book for each of the wards and could legally maintain one assessment book covering all the wards; (2) that the authentication provided for by r. 19 of the said rules in Ch. VIII to Sch. A of the Act 	*as not mandatory; (3) that the liability to pay the tax arose when entry under r. 9(e) was made in the assessment book; and 9 46 (4)that section 129 (c) read with sections 99 and 127 did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation as the legislature had provided in the Act both its policy and principles guiding the Corporation in levying the said tax. The High Court also negatived the contention that section 129(c) by giving power to tax without laying down the maximum rate was violative of article 19(1) (f) and/or article 31 or article 14. The High Court also rejected the additional contentions raised in the petitions left over from the earlier batch of 52 petitions and dismissed all of them. The correctness of the views expressed by the High Court in this judgment	 as also in its earlier judgment by the combined effect of which altogether 70 writ petitions were negatived	 is challenged in this appeal. We need not go into all the diverse contentions raised before the High Court as counsel for the appellant raised before us the following three questions only (1) that while making the	 assessment the procedure contemplated by sections 127	 129(c) of the Act and rr. 9 to 20 of the Taxation Rules was not cornplied with inasmuch as no ward assessment books were maintained	 and consequently	 the entries therein were not authenticated as required by r. 19; (2) that section 129 suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative powering as the Act fails to provide either the maximum rate leviable by the Corporation or the guidelines for levying the tax; (3) that in any view of the matter	 in the circumstances in which the resolution raising the rate was passed	 it did not impose the enhanced rate on the property of the appellant as the same was 	not	 prior to April 1961 ' subjected to the U.I.P. tax. Later	 Mr. lyengar gave up	 the third contention. We are	 there fore	 left with his contentions (1) and (2) only for determination. Broadly stated	 the facts regarding the assessment book and its authentication are as follows : Each year the Commissioner either prepared or continued the assessment book required to be maintained by him under the Taxation Rules. Each year he went through the procedure for authentication of the assessment book purporting to do so under r. 19 of the Taxation Rules. After 9 4 7 the assessment book was authenticated	 as aforesaid	 and a certificate was issued by him that no valid objection had been received in respect of the rateable values entered in the assessment book as required by cl. (e) of r. 9 of the said rules	 the Corporation issued bills and demand notices requiring the owners or occupiers of the properties to pay the said tax. The Act and the rules provide for objections to the rateable values entered in the assessment book under Cl. (b) of r. 9	 which objections would be heard and decided by the Commissioner. There are provisions in the Act	 such as sections 406	 4 1 0 and 41 1	 for appeals to the Judge	 Small Causes Court	 both against the rateable value fixed under the Taxation Rules as also against the amount of tax demanded in the bills. As aforesaid	 the High Court dismissed the contention as to the constitutionality of section 129(c) basing its decision mainly on the authority of the Corporation of Calcutta vs Liberty Cinema	(1) wherein the validity of section 548(2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act	 authorising the Corporation to levy a fee (held by this Court to be a tax) for every licence and permission at such rate as may be fixed from time to time by the Corporation '. but which did not lay down the maximum rate	 was challenged. The High Court in particular relied on the observations in that decision (1) that fixation of the rate was not an esserxtial legislative function and could be delegated	 and (2) that the provisions in the Act	 which limited the power to levy taxes to the extent of the statutory needs of the Corporation	 furnished sufficient control and guidance. Reliance was also placed on the following observation relating to the absence of maximum rate "It is said that the delegation of power to fix rates of taxes authorised for meeting the needs of the delegate to be valid	 must provide the maximum rate that can be fixed	 or lay down rules indicating that maximum. We are unable to see how the specification of the maximum rate supplies any guidance as to how the amount of the tax	 which no doubt has to be below the maximum	 is to be fixed. Provision for such maximum only sets out a limit of the rate to be imposed and a limit is only a limit and not a guidance." Besides deriving support from this judgment	 the High Court examined various provisions of the Act and reached the conclusion that under the Act	 as under the Calcutta Act	 the tax	 which the Corporation could collect	 would have to be for the purposes of the Act only and that fact	 together with certain other controls embodied in the Act	 furnished sufficient guidance preventing the vice of arbitrariness or excessive delegation. (1) ; 948 Before the High Court	 the contention also was that for each. of the relevant years there was no valid assessment book on the basis of which the property tax could be levied. The argument was that the Taxation Rules required the Commissioner to prepare ward assessment book for each of the wards and not one assessment book for the whole of the municipal limits	 that being so	 the assessment made on the properties was not in accordance with the rules prescribed for that purpose and was therefore in breach of article 265 of the Constitution and section 127(2) of the Act which lays down that the taxes shall be assessed and levied in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules. The High Court	 on a reading of the rules	 found : (1) that r. 10 gave discretion to the	 Commissioner to prepare either one assessment book or ward assessment books	 and (2) that the rules used both the expressions	 namely	 'assessment book ' and 'ward assessment books the latter expression being used only in rr. 13 (1)	 15 f and 1 9 (1 ) and (2). According to the High Court	 the contention as to the validity of the assessment book and the construction of the rules suggested on behalf of the appellant were not correct. The object of r. 9	 according to the High Court	 was to provide for the preparation and maintenance of the assessment book wherein would be entered the amount of property tax against each of the buildings and lands set out therein. The rule provided that the Commissioner shall first make entries under cls. (a) to (d) of the rule. An entryunder cl. (e)	 as its language plainly shows	 is to be made after :(1) the rates of property tax are fixed	 (2) the period fixed forreceipt of complaints against the rateable values has expired	 and (3) after such complaints	 if any	 are disposed of by the Commissioner. An entry under cl. (e) having to be made only after the events in (1)	 (2) and (3) above stated have happened	 r. 9 takes in	 by using the expression "as herein after provided"	 the public notice provided by rr. 13 and 15. According to the High Court	 the liability to pay the property tax arises as soon as entry under cl. (e) of r. 9 is made in the assessment book in the manner therein provided and is not dependent on authentication and certification provided in r. 19 in respect of ward assessment books. Authentication and certification in such ward assessment books provides a rule of evidence in the sense that the entries therein become conclusive evidence as regards the amount of tax therein set out against each property and is not an event on the happening of which the liability to pay arises. Such liability arises as soon as entry under cl. (e) of r 9 is made. The High Court distinguished its earlier decision in the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad vs Zaveri Keshavtal(1) by pointing out that that decision was under the Bombay (1) 6 Guj. L.R.701. 949 Municipal Boroughs Acts	 1925 which had a scheme and pro visions different from the present Act and the rules thereunder made. That decision had laid down that the liability of the rate payer would arise only after authentication of the assessmentbook. For distinguishing that decision the High Court	 firstly	 relied on r. 30 of the Taxation Rules which provides that property tax shall accrue clue on the 1st of April of each official year	 and secondly	 on the ground that the Boroughs Act and the rules thereunder did not have a rule corresponding to r. 9(e) which	 when read with r. 30	 shows that the liability to pay the amount of tax arises on entry under cl. (e) of that rule being made. According to the High Court	 r. 19	 )which provides for authentication applies only to ward assessment books and not to a single asscssment book	 that such authentication has nothing to do with the accrual of liability and is a mere rule of evidence which is not available to the Corporation where the Commissioner does not prepare ward assessment books and keeps only one assessment book. The High Court in this connection observed "If a single assessment book is prepared	 then the amount of tax entered in the assessment book will not be the conclusive evidence. In an appeal	 it would be open to a rate payer to challenge the amount on any legal ground	 possibly including the challenge to the rateable value of the property in respect of the fact that had not been done before by him. " On this interpretation	 the High Court dismissed the entire batch of the said 70 writ petitions including that of the appellant. Though the earlier judgment is not under review in this appeal	 we have set out its conclusions as the judgment under review followed the earlier judgment	 delivered by the same learned Judges and rejected the conclusions raised by the appellant. In effect	 therefore	 both the judgments are under challenge to the extent that they decided questions raised in this appeal. 127(1) lays down that "for the purposes of this Act" the taxes which the Corporation has compulsorily to levy are property taxes and a tax on vehicles	 boats and animals. The second subsection authorises the Corporation to levy the taxes set out therein in addition to the aforesaid two taxes. 129 deals with property taxes. (c) there of provides that property taxes shall comprise inter alia of a general tax of not less than 12% of the rateable value of buildings and lands. We may note that the Gujarat State Legislature	 by Act 8 of 1968	 has recently amended cl. (c) by inserting therein the maximum rate of 30%	 so that the question as to the absence of maximum rate is relevant only 950 for the assessment years prior to the amendment. The Legislature itself has framed elaborate rules contained in Sch. A to the Act of which the Taxation Rules in Ch. VIII thereof are part and which under section 453 form part of the Act. Besides the said rules	 sections 454 and 455 authorise the Corporation to add to	 amend	 alter 	or rescind those rules subject to their being not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act	 sanction of the State Government and to the condition of their being made after previous publication. The other relevant provisions of the Act are sections 63 to 66 which lay down the obligatory functions which the Corporation must perform and certain discretionary functions which it can perform. The argument was that thought section 127 ( 1 ) lays down that property taxes can be levied by the Corporation only for the purposes 	of the Act	 that is to say	 for and in respect of the functions which the Corporation must and can carry out	 the Act being silent as to the maximum rate upto which the Corporation can levy	 it gives unbridled and arbitrary power to levy the property tax as much and to any extent it may desire. Mr. Iyengar pointed out that amongst the discretionary functions which the Corporation can undertake under section 66 there are such things as swimming pools	 public parks	 gardens	 recreation grounds	 construction of dwellings	 for municipal officers and servants	 libraries	 museums etc. for undertaking which the Corporation can spend huge	 amounts and impose extravagant and burdensome rate of tax. According to the argument	 there are no guidelines or controls in the Act which can place any limits to the spending by the Corporation on such discretionary objects	 and therefore	 the rate payers are exposed to being taxed in an arbitrary and uncontrolled fashion. The question. thus is whether the Act contains any policy or ' guidelines or control over the taxing power of the Corporation without which the delegation of power to tax would be excessive	 arbitrary and violative of article 14. The Act	 as its preamble and the long title show	 was passed for establishment of municipal corporations in the city of Ahemedabad and Poona and certain other cities for ensuring better municipal government. It was apparently modelled after the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act	 1888. The Act does not lay down any maximum rate in section 127 probably because its operation was not confined to any particular city in which the municipal corporation would be set up. The Legislature	 while passing it	 could not envisage in which particular cities such corporations would be set up. Nor could it envisage what their financial needs would be; nor which of the discretionary functions	 under section 66	 such 	corporations would feel they must undertake. Such needs being variable and incapable of uniform specification	 the Legislature might have felt if inexpedient to restrict the fiscal powers of the corporations to be established in furture. 951 The point for consideration is whether the absence of a pro vision laying down the maximum rate is by itself sufficient to render the delegation of the power excessive. As already stated	 section 127(1) expressly provides that taxes can be levied only for the purposes of the Act. They cannot thus be raised for any function 'other than the one provided by the Act. 82 requires all monies received by the Corporation under the Act to be credited to the Municipal Fund held by the Corporation in trust for the purposes of the Act. By reason of section 86	 no payment can be made out of the Municipal Fund unless it is covered by the current budget grant. Furthermore	 section 88 lays down that the moneys credited in the Municipal Fund shall be applied in payment of sums	 charges and costs necessary for carrying the Act into effect	 or payment directed or sanctioned by or under the Act. 89 restricts expenditure by the Corporation within the city except when provided by the Act or by a resolution by not less than. half the total number of councillors. Under section 95	 the Commissioner is required annually to lay before the Standing Committee estimates of income and expenditure	 and under section 96. the Standing Com mittee has to prepare budget estimate 'A ' "having regard to all the requirements of this Act. " The budget estimate then has to be laid before and passed by the Corporation. Similar provisions are made in sections 97 and 98 for budget estimate 'B ' prepared by the Transport Manager. It is after all this has been	 done that the Corporation under section 99 determines	 on or before the 20th of February of each year	 the rates at which property taxes under section 127(1)	 but sub ject to the limitations and conditions laid down in Ch. XI	 are to be levied for the next ensuing official year	 Under section 100	 the Corporation	 either sends back the budget esti mates 'A or 'B ' for further consideration	 or adopts them with such alterations as it deems expedient. The conditions and limitations subject to which the Corporation can fix	 under section 99	 the rates at which the property taxes are to be levied are those provided in section 127(3) and (4)	 i.e.	 they can be assessed and levied in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules. These provisions clearly show that the ultimate control	 both for raising the taxes and incurring expenditure	 lies with the councillors chosen by and responsible to the people. As aforesaid	 the assessment and levy of the property taxes have to be in conformity with the Act and the rules. These rules contain inter alia Taxation Rules	 which are part of the Act. Sec. 454	 no doubt	 empowers the Corporation to amend	 alter and add to these rules	 but such power is made under section 455 subject to the sanction of the State Government. Under section 4 56	 the State Government can at any time require the Corporation to make rules under section 454 in respect of any purpose of matter specified in section 457	 which includes item "(7) Municipal Taxes. (a) The assess 95 2 ment and recovery of municipal taxes". Thus	 although the Ac does not prescribe the maximum rate at which the property taxe can be raised	 the ultimate control for raising them is with the councillors responsible to the people. It is difficult	 therefore	 to sustain the plea that the power to levy the property tax is so un bridled as to make it possible for the corporation to levy it in arbitrary manner or extent. In all statutes dealing with local administration municipa I authorities have inevitably to be delegated the power of taxation	. Such power is a necessary adjunct to a system of local self govemment. Whether such delegation is excessive and amounts to abdication of an essential legislative function has to be considered from the scheme	 the objects	 and the provisions of the statute in question. In The Western India Theatres Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of the City of Poona(1) this Court spelt out the policy in the expression "for the purposes of this Act"	 an expression also used in section 127. In Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot vs Madhya Pradesh(2)	 delegation of power to the executive to determine the details relating to the working of taxation laws	 such as the selection of persons on whom the tax is to be levied the rates at which it is to be charged in respect of different classes of goods and the like	 was held not to be unconstitutional on the principle that so long as the legislature retains or has the power of withdrawing or altering the power to tax delegated to a subordinate authority such delegation would be held neither an abdication nor excessive. In Liberty Cinema case ( 3 ) the majority view was that the power to fix the rate of a tax was not of the essence of the legislative power and that such a power could be delegated even to a non legislative body. But the decision laid down that when such a power is delegated	 the legislature must provide guidance for such fixation. The majority held that where rates have not been specified in the statute	 the power to fix the rates as might be necessary to meet the needs of the delegate itself affords guidance. The minority view differed from the majority view	 in that	 according to it	 the power to fix the rate of tax was an essential legislative function. But	 even according to that view	 such a power can be delegated provided the delegate is afforded guidance by the legislative laying down the policy and principles in the Act	 It	 however	 disagreed with the majority view that the raising of tax 'co extensive with the needs of the delegate in implementing the purposes of the Act can afford such guidance. The Liberty Cinema case(3) came for consideration in Devi Das vs Punjab (4) where Subba Rao	 C.J.	 speaking for the Court	 said : (1)[1959] Sup	 2 S.C.R.71. (2) [1959] S.C.R.427. (3) [1965]2 S.C.R. 477. (4 ; 953 "If this decision [Liberty Cinema case(1) is an authority for the position that the Legislature can delegate its power to a statutory authority to levy taxes and fix rates in regard thereto	 it is equally an authority for the position that the said statute to be valid must give a guidance to the said authority for fixing the said rates. " Though he did not agree as a general principle that guidance can always be spelt out from the limitation to fix the rate by the extent of needs of and the expenses required by the delegate to discharge its statutory functions	 the Court did not disapprove Liberty Cinema case(1) but confined the principle laid down there to the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act in which the majority had found the requisite guidelines. No such guidance was available in the Sales Tax statute before the Bench deciding Devi Das 's case(2). The position which emerged from the decisions so far	 therefore	 was that the power to fix rates can be delegated if the statute doing so contains a policy or principles furnishing gunance to the delegate in exercising such power. In the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Birla MilIS(3)	 the question as to the limits of delegation of taxing power once more arose. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act	 1957	 like the present Act	 entrusted to the Delhi Corporation two kinds of functions	 compulsory and optional. In relation to the former	 the Act specified the maximum rate of tax the Corporation could raise	 but not so in the case of tax relating to or for implementing the optional functions. The controversy was whether the Act contained provisions furnishing guidance to the Corporation in the exercise of the power to tax. After an analysis of the provisions of the Act	 Wanchoo	 C.J.	 pointed out the following factors which furnished ' sufficient guidance preventing the delegation becoming invalid : (1) that the delegation was to an elected body responsible to the people	 including those who pay taxes and to whom the councillors have every four years to turn to for being elected; (2) that the limits of taxation were to be found in the. purposes of the Act for the implementation of which alone taxes could be raised and though this factor was not conclusive	 it was nonetheless relevant and must be taken into account with other relevant factors; (3) that the impugned section 1 150 itself contained a provision which required that the maximum rate fixed by the. Corporation should have the approval of the Government; (1) [196512 S.C.R. 477	 (2) ; (3) 1968(3) S.C.R.251. 954 (4) that the Act contained provisions which required adoption of budget estimates by the Corporation annually; and (5) that there was a check by the courts of law where the poower of taxation is used unreasonably or in non compliance or breach of the provisions and objects of the Act. Referring to Devi Das case(1)	 he pointed out that (1) that did not disapprove Liberty Cinema case (2 ) was concerned case with a sales tax statute and not with a statute dealing with bodies with limited purposes	 such as local self governing bodies. At page 268 of the reports he observed. : "There is in our opinion a clear distinction between delegation of fixing the rate of tax like sales tax to the State Government and delegation of fixing rates of certain taxes for purposes of local taxation. The needs of 	the State are unlimited. The result of making delegation of a tax like sales tax to the	 State Government means a power to fix the tax without any limit even if the needs and purposes of the State are to be taken into account. " Thus	 the majority view in this decision	 which is binding on us	 shows that the mere fact that an Act delegating taxing power refrains from providing a maximum rate does not by itself render the delegation invalid. From the provisions of the present Act	 cited earlier	 it will be seen that though factor (3) of the factors relied on by Wanchoo	 C.J.	 is absent in section 127	 the rest are present. It is impossible to say that when a provision requiring sanction of the Government to the maximum rate fixed by the Corporation is absent	 the rest of the factors which exist in the Act loose their efficacy and cease to be guidelines. Furthermore	 if the Corporation were to misuse the flexibility of the power given to it in fixing the rates	 the State legislature can at any moment withdraw that flexibility by fixing the maximum Emit up to which the Corporation can tax. Indeed	 the State Legislature has now done so by section 4 of Gujarat Act	 8 of 1968. In view of the decisions cited above it is not possible for us to agree with counsel 's contention that the Act confers on the Corporation such arbitrary and uncontrolled power as to ren der such conferment an excessive delegation. That brings us to the contention regarding the validity of the assessment book maintained by the Commissioner for the assessment year in question. (1) ; (2) ; 955 Rules 9 to 21 of the Taxation Rules are headed "Assessment Book". A comparison of these rules with sections 156 to 168 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act	 1888 at once shows that they are	 with the exception of r. 10	 taken almost verbatim from those sections. Rule 9 requires the Commissioner to keep a book to be called the "Assessment Book" in which the following matters have to be entered	 viz.	 (a) a list of buildings and lands	 (b) the rateable value of each of them	 (c) the names of persons primarily liable for the payment of the property taxes	 if any	 leviable on each such building or land	 (d) the reasons for non liability	 if any of them is not liable to be assessed to the general tax	 and (e) "when the rates of the property taxes to be levid for the year have been duly fixed by the Corporation and the period fixed by public notice	 as hereinafter provided	 or the receipt of complaints against the amount of rateable value entered in any portion of the assessment book has expired	 and in the case of any such entry which is complained against	 when such complaint has been disposed	 of in ' accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained	 the amount at which each building or land entered in such portion of the assessrnent book is assessed to each of the property taxes	 if any	 liable thereon. " The rule contain other clauses	 but we are not at present concerned with them. Rule 10(1) provides that the assessment book may	 if the Commissioner thinks fit	 be made in separate books called "ward assessment books"	 one for each of the wards into which the city is for the time being divided for purposes of the elections. (2) of the rule says that the ward assessment books and the respective parts	 if any	 shall collectively constitute the assessment 	book. Rule 10 differs from section 157 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act	 in that	 whereas it gives an option to the Commissioner either to maintain one assessment book. for the entire city or separate ward assessment books	 section 157 gives no such option and provides only for ward assessment books which collectively constitute	 as in r. 10(2)	 "the assessment book". The Legislature	 thus	 deliberately made a departure from section 157 by leaving it to the discretion of the Commissioner either to maintain one book or several books wardwise. Such a departure was presumably made because the Act 956 was to apply not to one city only	 as did the 'Bombay Act of 1888	 but to an unknown number of cities where municipal corporation might in future be set up	 each having different conditions from the	 other and not being certain whether one assessment book or separate ward assessment books would be suitable for each of them. Rules 11 and 12 deal with treatment of properties let to two or m ore persons in separate occupancies and the procedure where the name of the person primarily liable for property taxes cannot be ascertained. Rule 12	 it Will be noticed	 mentions only the assessment book and not ward assessment books. Rule 13 provides that when entries required by cls. (a)	 (b)	 (c) and (d) of rule 9 have been completed "in any ward assessment book 	 the. Commissioner shall give public notice thereof and of the place where the ward assessment book	 or a copy of it	 may be inspected. " Rule 14 provides for inspection and taking extracts by an owner or occupier of premises entered ' in "the assessment book" from any portion of "tie said book" which relates to the said pre mises. Rule 15 requires the Commissioner "at the time and in the manner prescribed in r. 13" to give notice of a day not being less than 15 days from the publication of such notice	 on or before which complaints against the amount of any rateable value entered "in the ward assessment book" will be received in his office. Cl. 	(2) of that rule requires the Commissioner to give a special written notice to the owner or occupier of premises which have for the first time been entered "in the assessment book ' as liable to property taxes or in which the rateable value of any premises has been increased. Rule 16 provides for the manner of filing complaints referred to in r. 1 5 against the rateable value "entered in the assessment book"	 and r. 17 provides that complaints received under r. 16 shall be registered in a book kept for that purpose as also for notice to each complainant of the	 time and place when and whereat his complaint would be investigated. 	 Rule 18 provides for the hearing of the complaint if and cl. (3) thereof lays down that when a complaint is disposed of	 its result shall be noted in the said book of complaints and the necessary amendment shall be made in accordance with such result "in the assessment book". Rule 19	 which has been the subject matter of controversy both in the High Court and before us	 provides that when "all such complaints	 if any	 have been disposed of and the entries required by cl. (e) of r. 9 have been completed in the ward assessment book	 the said book shall be authenticated by the Commissioner	 who shall certify	 under his signature	 that except in the cases	 if any	 in which amendments have been made as shown therein	 no valid objection has been made to the rateable values entered in the said book". (2) provides that "the said ward assessment book sub 95 7 ject to such alterations as may thereafter be made therein under the provisions of r. 20 shall be accepted as conclusive evidence of the amount of each property tax leviable on each building and land in the ward in the official year to which the book relates. " Rule 20 empowers the Commissioner to amend the assessment book even after it has been authenticated in certain cases and subject to the conditions set out therein. Lastly 	 r. 21 provides that it is not necessary to prepare a new assessment book every official year and permits the Commissioner to adopt the entries in the last preceding year 's book as the entries for each new year. This	 he can do	 for. four successive years. From the scheme of rules 9 to 21	 it is clear that the Commissioner first enters in the assessment book prescribed by r. 9 the particulars set out in cls. (a) to (d) of at rule. Having done this	 he proceeds to enter in the assessment book the amount at which each building or land is assessed. He can do this under cl. (e) naturally after (i) the rates of property taxes are fixed by the Corporation	 (ii) the period fixed by public notice under r. 13 and for the receipt of complaints under 15 against rateable values entered under cl. (b) has expired	 and (iii) after such complaints	 if any	 have been disposed of. On a plain meaning of the language in r. 10 the Commissioner has the option to maintain either one assessment book or ward assessment books separately for each ward. But even if he were to do so	 such ward assessment books would collectively constitute "the assessment book". As earlier stated	 giving of such an option under r. 10 was a clear departure by the Legislature from section 157 of the Bombay Act	 1888. Since these rules have been taken almost verbatim from that Act	 the departure has to be regarded as deliberate. and for the reason that the Legislature could not foresee at the time of enacting the Act as to the cities in which municipal corporations would be set up and the conditions prevailing at such time in those cities. The difficulty	 however	 arises because rr. 13	 15 and 19	 which provide for a notice for inspection	 for filing complaints against rateable Values entered under el. (b) of r. 9 and for authentication and certification	 use the expression "ward assessment book". It is from this fact that the contention was raised that	 though r. IO is couched in permissive language	 it must be construed as mandatory requiring the Commissioner to maintain ward assessment books. Therefore	 the Commissioner having maintained only one assessment book for the whole city	 it is not a valid book on the basis of which the levy of the property tax can be sustained. The argument was that the right of inspection	 the right of taking extracts	 the right to file complaints and the duty to give 958 public. notice under rr. 13 and 15 and a special notice under cl. (2) of r. 15	 as also the duty to authenticate and certify under r. 1 9	 are all matters vital to both the rate payers	 as also. the Corporation	 and that it was in respect of these vital matters that rr. 13	 15 and 19 speak of ward assessment books. Therefore	 if the Legislature	 which framed these rules	 had contemplated one assessment book instead of separate assessment books for each of the wards	 the language of these rules would not have been what it is. The Language of these rules	 therefore	 show that r. 10 must be construed to mean that the Commissioner has to maintain ward assessment books and it is when such books are maintained that the Corporation can validly levy the tax on the basis of such books. Confronted with this difficulty	 the High Court construed the rules to mean that r. 10 was discretionary and not mandatory but that rr. 13	 15 and 19 apply only when ward assessment books are kept	 and that when they are read together	 they show that the scheme was that where ward assessment books are prepared the Legislature intended to invest each of such books with a finality and did not intend that the question as to rateable value or the amount of tax should remain hanging fire until all the ward assessment books were prepared. As regards r. 19	 the High Court held that "if a single assessment book is prepared	 then the amount of tax entered in the assessment book will not be conclusive evidence". Such a conclusion means that r. 19	 as also rr. 13 and 15 would apply only to ward assessment books	 and therefore	 there would be no authentication and certification where one assessment book is kept and entries in such a single assessment book would not be conclusive evidence as regards the quantum of tax entred in it under cl. (e) of r. 9. But once it is held that r. IO is discretionary and the Commissioner can maintain one assessment book or several ward assessment books	 as the High Court has done	 it is hardly possible that the legislature which gave such an option could have intended that r. 19 should apply only to ward assessment books and not where one assessment book is kept and deprive the Corporation of the benefit of entries in it being treated as conclusive evidence. 	 It is true that a genuine difficulty arises in construing these rules as a result of the use of the expression "ward assessment book" in rr. 13	 15 and 19	 and the use of the expression "a ssessment book in the rest of the rules. At the same time acceptance of the appellant 's contention or the in terpretation by the High Court would create difficulties. The contention that r. 10 should be construed as mandatory ignores (1) the permissive language of the rule	 and 9 59 (2)the deliberate departure made by the Legislature from section 157 of the Bombay Corporation Act. If it intended that assessmentbooks for each ward should be kept	 there was no necessity for it to depart from the language of section 157 of that Act. The fact that it made such a departure is a sure indication that it did not. Unless compelled by the context and the content of the other rules	 there would be no justification not to give to r. 10 the plain meaning of its language	 particularly in view of the fact that the Act is intended to apply not to one but to an indefinite number of cities	 each differing in conditions from the other	 a factor which	 as aforesaid	 led the Legislature to make a departure from the said section 157. But a far more serious difficulty would arise if the conclusion reached by the High Court were to be accepted. If r. 19 were to be interpreted as applying to ward assetsment books	 and not where one assessment book is kept	 rr. 13 and 15 must also on the same reasoning be construed in the same way. The Legislature could not have intended that the entry under cl. (e) of r. 9	 as regards the quantum of property tax leviable on each building and land	 would become conclusive evidence only where ward assessmentbooks are kept and not where one assessment book is kept. (e) of r. 9 requires the Commissioner to enter in the assessment book the amount at which each building is assessed to each of the property taxes. The object of authen0cation under r. 19 is to make such entry conclusive evidence of the amount being leviable on each such building and land for the particular official year. It is the amount of tax entered under cl. (e) of r. 9 to which is given the attribute of conclusive evidence	 so that the Corporation can thenceforth proceed to issue bills for those amounts and serve demand notices. The rate payers cannot object to such bills and notices on the ground that the amounts therein set out are not correct by reason of some error or such similar reason. Rule 19 confers conclusiveness only to that extent and not to the rateable value or the tax fixed or charged	 as both are subject to an appeal under s.406. Rule 19	 therefore	 was intended to enable the Corporation to proceed to make demands so soon as entries are made as provided by cl. (e) of r. 9 and the Commission has given thereafter his authentication that there exists no valid objection to the rateable value entered under the said cl. Since the object of r. 19 is to make the entry as to the amount of tax conclusive evidence so as to enable the Commissioner to issue the bills	 the Legislature could not have intended to apply the rule only when ward assessment books are kept and not when one assessmentbook is maintained especially when in r. 10 it has deliberately given discretion to the Commissioner to maintain either one assessment book or several ward assessment books. We are in agreement with the High Court that the liability to pay the tax arises under r. 30 and r. 9(e) and is not dependent on 17 LI10OSupCI/71 9 60 authentication	 which	 as aforesaid	 is intended for a limited purpose. But that does not mean that the provision as to authentication applies only when ward assessment books are kept	 or that r. 19 does not apply where one assessment book is prepared. If r. 19 were to be so construed	 rr. 13 and 15 also would have on the same reasoning to be likewise construed. That would mean that the notice to enable the rate pay to take inspection under r. 13 and the notice under r. 15 fixing the date on or before which complaints against rateable value can be made	 would have to be given only where ward assessment books are kept and not where one assessment book is kept. It goes without saying that the right to inspect provided under r. 13 and the right to file a complaint under r. 15 are vital matters. That being so	 it is hardly conceivable that the Legislature intended these rules to apply only where the Commissioner keeps ward assessment books. Since	 for the reasons given earlier	 r. 10 has to be construed as permissive and not mandatory	 and the construction adopted by the High Court in regard to rr. 1 3	 15 and 19 is bound to create anomalies pointed out above	 the conclusion we must reach is that it was through inadvertence that the old language used in sections 157 to 168 of the Bombay Corporation Act was allowed to be retained without carrying out the change of language necessitated as a result of r. 10 giving discretion to the Commissioner either to maintain one book or several books wardwise. The result	 therefore	 is that the assessment book in question must be held to be valid and no objection as to the validity of the bills and demand notices can be raised on the ground that only one assessment book and not wardwise books are kept. The appellant	 thus	 does not succeed on either of the two contentions raised on his behalf. The appeal fails 'and is dismissed with costs. G.C. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant was owner of immovable property situate within the limits of the municipal corporation	 Ahmedabad City. Under the power reserved to it by section 127 of the Act the Corporation served on the appellant as also on the other rate payers	 bills and demand notices for payment 	of property tax in respect of the assessment year 1962 63. These were challenged by the appellant and also certain other rate payers in writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court inter alia held (i) that section 129 of the Act did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation by reason 	of the fact that no maximum rate of tax was laid down; (ii) that it was permissible under r. 10 to maintain only one assessment book and the levy could not be held invalid on the ground that ward wise assessment books as contemplated by rr. 13	 15 and 19 were not maintained. In appeal to this Court by certificate	 HELD : The High Court rightly held that the charging sections of the Act were not without guidelines. The assessment and levy of the property taxes have to be in conformity with the Act and the rules. These rules contain inter alia Taxation Rules which are part of the Act. Section 454	 no doubt	 empowers the corporation to amend	 alter and add to those rules but such power is made under section 455 subject to sanction of the State Government. Under section 456 the State Government can at any time require the Corporation to make rules under section 454 in respect of any purpose or matter specified in section 457 which includes item "Municipal Taxes The assessment and recovery of Municipal Taxes. " Although the Act did not during the relevant period prescribe the maximum rate at which the property taxes could be raised	 the ultimate control for raising them was with the councillors responsible to the people	 It was difficult therefore to sustain the plea that the power to levy the property tax was so unbridled as to make it possible for the Corporation to levy it in an arbitrary manner or extent. [951 G 852 B] The proposition that when a provision requiring sanction of the Government to the maximum rate fixed by the Corporation is absent	 the rest of the factors which exist in the Act lose their efficacy and cease to be guidelines cannot be accepted. Further	 if the Corporation has the flexibility of power given to it in fixing the rates	 the State Legislature can at any moment withdraw that flexibility by fixing the maximum limit up to which the Corporation can tax. Indeed the State Legislature had done so by section 4 of the Gujarat Act	 8 of 1968. In view of the decisions of this Court it is not possible to agree with the contention that the Act conferred on the Corporation such arbitrary and uncontrolled power as to render such conferment an excessive delegation. [954 F G] 943 Corporation of Calcutta vs Liberty Cinema	 [1965] 2 S.C.R. 477	 Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedanwd vs Zaveri Keshavia	 	 Western India Theatres Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of the City Poona	 [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 71	 Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot vs Madhya Pradesh	 ; and Devi Das vs Punjab ; referred to. Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Birla Mills	 ; followed. (2) The tax levied on the basis of one assessment book was not invalid	 Rule 10 differs from section 157 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act	 1888	 in that	 whereas	 it gives an option to the Commissioner either to maintain one assessment book for the entire city or separate assessment books	 Sec. 157 gave no such option and provided only for ward assessment book which collectively constituted	 as in r. 10(2)	 "the assessment book '. The legislature deliberately made a departure from section 157 by leaving it to the discretion of the Commissioner either to maintain one book or several books ward wise. Such a departure was presumably made because the Act was to apply not to one city only	 as did the Bombay Act of 1888	 but to an unknown number of cities where Municipal Corporations might in future be set up	 each having different conditions from the other and not being certain whether one assessment book or separate ward assessment books would be suitable for each of them. [955 G; 956 A] The contention that r. 10 should be	 construed as mandatory ignores (1) the permissive language of the rule and (2) the deliberate departure made by the legislature from section 1 57 of the Bombay Corporation Act	 1888. If it intended that assessment books for each ward shoud be kept	 there was no necessity for it to depart from the language of section 157 of that Act. The fact that it made such departure is a sure indication that it did not. Unless compelled by the context and content of the other rules	 there would be no justification not to give to r. 10 the plain meaning of its language	 particularly in view of the fact that the Act intended to apply not to one but to an indefinite number of cities	 each differing in conditions from the other a factor which	 as aforesaid	 led the legislature to make a departure from the said section 157. [958 H 959 B] Certain anomalies would arise from the High Court 's interpretation that rr. 13	 15 and 19 would not apply in the case of one assessment book. Rule 19 was intended to enable the Corporation to proceed to makedemands so soon as entries were made as provided by cl. (e) of r. 9 and the Commissioner had given thereafter his authentication that there existed no valid objection to the ratable values entered under the said cl. Since the object of r. 19 was to make the entry as to the amount of tax conclusive evidence so as to enable the Commissioner to issue the bills	 the legislature could not have intended to apply the rule only when ward assessment books were kept and not when	 one assessment book was maintained	 especially when in r. 10 it had deliberately given discretion to the Commissioner to maintain either one assessment book or several ward assessment books. Further if r. 19 were to be so construed	 rr. 13	 and 15 also would have on the same reasoning to be likewise construed. That would mean that the notice to enable the rate payers to take inspection under r. 13 and the notice under r. 15 fixing the date on or before which complaints against 'ratable value can be made	 would have to be given only where ward assessment books are kept and not where one L1100 SupCI/71 944 assessment book is kept. it goes without saying that the right to inspect provided under r. 13 and the right to file a complaint under r. 15 are vital matters. That being so it is hardly conceivable that the legislature intended these rules to apply only where the Commissioner kept ward assessment books. Since r. 10 has to be construed as permissive and not mandatory	 and the construction adopted by the High Court in regard to rr. 13	 15 and 19 is bound to create anomalies	 the conclusion must be that it was through inadvertence that the old language used in sections 157 to 168 of the Bombay Corporation Act was allowed to be retained without carrying out the change. of language necessitated as a result of r. 10 giving discretion to the Commissioner either to maintain one book or several books ward wise. In the result the assessment book in question must be held to be valid and no objection as to the validity of the bills and demand notices can be raised on the ground that only one assessment book and not warding books were kept. [959 C 960 E]