SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is a private limited company registered under the Indian companies Act. It has been incorporated for the purpose of construction of buildings, flats and selling the same. One such venture undertaken by the petitioner is a building bearing Municipal No. 1-7-281 to 283/1. On that site, the petitioner constructed a commercial complex. The subject matter of dispute, in this case, is demand for municipal tax in respect of the cellar of the complex, which is alleged to have been let out by the petitioner. The tax was assessed under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short the Act ) with effect from 1-10-1989 and the arrears of tax till 31-3-1995 amounting tors. 1,57,464/- is now in dispute. Inrespect of the said demand, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to quash the said demand notice.

( 2 ) NOTICE before admission was taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and a counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. In the counter-affidavit, it is, inter alia, stated that the allegation that ten petty dealers are doing business in electronics and electrical goods in an extent of 2,000 Sq. feet is not correct. It is stated that the constructions of the 2,000 Sq. feet in the second cellar was completed even in the year 1988 and the same was assessed to tax for the first time in 1989 and that the entire cellar portion was leased out to a single tenant on annual rateable value of Rs. 90,000/ -. It is also stated that the building was assigned premises No. 1-7-281 to 283/1 in the name of the petitioner after obtaining the rental declaration from the tenant; that the special notice under sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Act bearing No. PA/87/c1/ 89, dated 21-10-1989 was issued in the name of the petitioner-company; but at the instance of the petitioner, it was served on the occupier on 23-10-1989 and that pursuant to the said notice the owner ought to have filed complaint within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, but no such complaint was filed. It is admitted that the demand notice was served on the petitioner demanding the arrears of tax of Rs. 1,57,464/- with effect from 1-4-1989. However, it is conceded mat as the said premises was assessed to tax with effect from 1-10-1989 demand insofar as it relates to the period from 1-4-1989 to 30-9-1989 amounting to Rs. 13,122/- has to be deducted from the amount in demand and it is stated that the correct amount in demand would come to Rs. 1,44,342 / -. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE petitioner f Jed a reply affidavit denying the allegations made in the counter-affidavit and reiterating the facts stated in the writ affidavit.

( 4 ) SRI S. Hanumaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that a special notice under sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Act could be served on the occupier only when the owner is not available; as the petitioner was very much available in the same building, mere was no basis for the authorities to serve the notice on the occupier. On account of non-service of notice on the petitioner, the petitioner was deprived of his opportunity of filing a complaint against me said notice, therefore, the impugned demand notice cannot be given effect to. As the demand was raised without complying with the principles of natural justice and also in violation of the provisions of Section 220 (2) of the Act, the impugned notice may be quashed.

( 5 ) SRI K. N. Jwala, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad, on the other hand, contends that the Act gives a choice to the Corporation to serve notice either on the owner or on the occupier; therefore, service of notice on the occupier is a valid service within the meaning of Section 220 (2) of the Act. As such, the demand is legally raised and the petitioner has to comply with the same.

( 6 ) THE short question that arises for co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document