R. Vyasachariar vs The Kumbakonam Municipality

Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.—The plaintiff-appellant seeks to contest the correctness of the increased assessment for the two half-years of

1950-51 on the ground that it is illegal and unjust. the municipal tax for the suit property was previously Rs. 175-5-0 per half year. It was

increased to Rs. 674-33 on or about the 15th July 1950 on which date the plaintiff appellant received a notice of enhancement, Ex. B. 3. Ex. B.3

shows that the amended assessment was made on the 29th June 1950 hut was served only on the 15th July 1950. The short contention of the

plaintiff in second appeal is that effect of the enhancement could not be given in respect of the tax payable for the hall year 1950-51 by virtue of the

proviso to R. 8 (2) of Sch. IV of the District Municipalities Act, Act V of 1920. S. 9 (2) provides that the executive authority may amend the

assessment books at any time between one general revision and another and such amendment shall be deemed to have taken effect on the first day

of the half year in which it is made. The amended assessment having been made on the 29th June 1950 under sub -R. 2, it must take effect from

the first day of the (sic) half year of 1950-51. But there is a proviso added to R. 8 (2) which says that when the amendment is made in any half

year after the demand notice for that half year has been issued, it shall have effect only from the succeeding half year. The contention of the

appellant is that the date of issue of the demand notice for the first half year becomes relevant and Ex. A. 1, which is the demand notice for the

assessment for the first half year does not contain the date of issue but only shows the date of service which is 31st July 1950. If the demand notice

Ex. A. I was prior to the date of Ex. B. 3, then the plaintiff can rightly ask that the enhanced assessment consequent on the amendment made in the

assessment books would take effect only for the second half year of 1950-51 that is from the 1st October 1950 to 31st March 1951. Curiously

enough the Municipality has not put in Ex. A. 1, the demand notice the date of issue. This is a sad omission and only displays the carelessness and

incompetency of those who were in charge of the issue of this notice, especially when the date of issue becomes relevant and assumes importance

in deciding questions as to rights of parties under the provisions of the District Municipalities Act and the rules framed there under. In the

circumstances, in the absence of such a dale it cannot be assumed in favour of the Muncipality that the notice of demand must have been issued

after the amendment of the assessment bocks which was on 29th June 1950. There is no warrant for such an assumption being made as against the

assesses tax payer and in the absence of proof the benefit of the omission would only go to the tax payer and in the circumstances it not having

been shown that the notice of enhancement was before the date of issue of Ex. A, 1, the proviso will have application and will absolve the plaintiff

from paying increased assessment for the first half year of 1950-51. Mr. Desikan however raised a question as to the jurisdiction of a civil Court in

a matter of this kind relying on a decision in The Municipal Council Vs. Singaraju Mallapparaju, , That decision proceeded on a different set of

facts. There the question was as to the excessive nature of the assessment and not as to the legality of the assessment. When the legality of the

assessment is questioned as in this case, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not excluded.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and a decree will be passed in favor of the plaintiff declaring that the enhancement of the assessment

for the first half year of 1950-5l is illegal. There will be no order as to costs in the second appeal. No leave.