JUDGMENT

KANIA,J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of a division bench of the Bombay High court delivered on 10/01/1980. The appellants before us are the Kalyan Municipal council (referred to hereinafter as the Municipal council), its Chief Officer and the State of Maharashtra respectively. Respondent 1 is a private limited company and is the owner of an industrial undertaking within the limits of the Municipal council. We propose to refer to respondent 1 as the Company.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts lie within a narrow compass and there is no dispute regarding the same. Property tax was levied by the Municipal council on the immovable properties of the Company within the territorial limits of the Municipal council in respect of the years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. In September 1973, the Municipal council claimed that it had detected certain new construction and alterations in the existing construction belonging to the Company and a report to that effect was made to the Standing Committee. A proposal was submitted to the Standing Committee to increase the property tax in respect of the said immovable property from 1/04/1970 to 31/03/1974. On 3/10/1973, the Standing Committee passed a resolution increasing the ratable value of the said immovable property of the Company from April, 1970 to 31/03/1974. After serving a notice on the Company, as required under the provisions of S. 123 (1 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act (referred to hereinafter as the said Act), and hearing the objections filed by the Company against the proposed increase, a demand notice was issued on the Company on 9/01/1975 demanding an amount of Rs. 51,626. 69 and an appropriate amount of educational cess and additional health tax. This notice of demand was challenged by the Company by way of Special Civil Application No. 147 of 1975 before the High court of Judicature at Bombay. The division bench ofthe Bombay High court which decided the said special civil application held that the case was covered by the decision of a full bench of the Bombay High court in Sholapur Municipal Corporation v. Ramchandra Ramappa Madgundi. The division bench of the Bombay High court in the impugned judgment has pointed out that there was no dispute that a notice dated 17/11/1973, being the notice as contemplated by S. 123 (1 of the said Act was issued to the Company for amending the assessment list. This notice was served after. 17/11/1973. After analyzing the provisions of S. 123 of the said Act and following the aforesaid decision of the full bench, the division bench took the view that alteration made in the assessment list after following the procedure under S. 123 (1 of the said Act does not become effective for any period prior to the commencement of the official year in which the alteration in the assessment list is made and the Municipality is not entitled to levy tax for an official year or any part thereof which is already expired. The division bench pointed out in the present case the alteration in the assessment list was made after 31/03/1974 and before 31/03/1975. In view of this the said alteration could not have the effect of increasing the assessment for any year prior to the year commencing from 1/04/1974. It is the correctness of this -decision, which is sought to beassailed before us in this appeal.

( 3 ) SINCE the decision under appeal is based mainly on the said decision of a full bench in the case of Sholapur Municipal Corporation v. Ramchandra Ramappa Madgundi, We may briefly refer to the said decision. That decision was based on the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, but the ratio of the decision applies to the case before us, because the relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs. Act and the said Act are in para materia. As far as the question raised before us is concerned, the provisions of S. 82, Ss. (3 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act are in pari materia with the provisions of S. 123 (3 of the said Act.