MADHURESH PRASAD, J.:–The petitioner’s school claims to be an educational institution being run for charitable purposes without any purpose of profit. The premises, situate at the Peepal Painti Road, Munger, from where they are running the institution has been assessed under Section 127 of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007 (‘Act of 2007’ for short) for the purposes of holding tax on rates applicable to principal main road. Accordingly, a demand has been raised for arrears and current holding tax on rates applicable to principal main roads. The total outstanding has been quantified at Rs. 9,93,578/- for the period between financial year 1997-98 to 2010-11, vide communication dated 21.06.2011 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Munger Municipal Corporation.

2. The petitioner’s school does not agree with the said demand raised by the Municipal Corporation on two grounds: One, that being a charitable institution and due to the fact that the building is used as religious residence for religious women in the Catholic Church, it is exempt from the tax demand under Section 124(2) of the Act of 2007. The second issue raised by the petitioner’s school is that there is no notification issued in terms of Section 127 of the Act of 2007 notifying Peepal Painti Road, Munger as a principal main road. In the absence of such notification, the Municipal Corporation cannot demand holding tax from the petitioner’s institution, which is situated on Peepal Painti Road, accessing holding tax at the rate applicable to principal main roads.

3. Under these circumstances, the petitioner’s school filed an objection petition against the demand raised under communication dated 21.06.2011.

4. Vide objection dated 29.07.2011, petitioner has claimed that Peepal Painti Road should be treated as under “Others” category, and not principal main road. By this objection, petitioner also requested the Municipal Corporation to provide the details of calculation based on which the demand was arrived at. The detailed calculation was communicated by the Municipal Corporation under its communication dated 04.08.2011.

5. It would be relevant to mention here that the respondent-Corporation, during pendency of the instant writ proceedings has admitted the petitioner’s institution to concession on holding tax instead of exemption vide order dated 04.04.2018. In view thereof, the petitioner’s counsel, for the present, is not raising any issue regards grant of exemption from holding tax by virtue of being a charitable institution. Since the issue has not been raised in the instant proceedings on account of concession granted by the respondent-Corporation, the Court would refrain from entering into, much less deciding the said issue.

6. In the circumstance, Mr. K.M Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments against the demand raised by the Corporation only on the ground that there being no notification under Section 127(5) of the Act of 2007 notifying Peepal Painti Road as a principal main road, the demand for holding tax raised by the Municipal Corporation treating Peepal Painti Road as Principal Main Road, was legally unsustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision of division bench of this court in the case of Nagar Parishad, Khagaria Vs. the State of Bihar & others reported in 2017 (1) BBCJ 411.

7. The petitioner had filed a review petition against the demand, which has been rejected under order dated 15.04.2017 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Munger Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Municipal Commissioner” for short). The demand of holding tax based on assessment of the petitioner’s premises treating it as being situated on a principal main road has been affirmed.

8. Petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal under Section 143 of the Act of 2007 against the impugned demand. The petitioner’s appeal under Section 143 of the Act of 2007 filed before the District Judge has also been rejected under order dated 1