( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are occupying a building at Surat, have filed these petitions praying to quash and set aside the special notices, bills including education cess bills and the attachment notices as the same are issued without authority of law.

( 2 ) SHORT facts are as under :- the petitioners are occupying part of a building bearing registration No. 1156- 57 and 1160 of Ward No. 9, Surat. It is contended by the petitioners that by order dated 5-12-1990 at Annexure b to the petition, permission was granted for construction. Paragraph 2. 6 of Spl. C. A. No. 283 of 1996, which is ambiguous, is reproduced verbatim as under : -2. 6 The petitioners submit that the petitioner firm started construction of the building in the year 1991 and that 70% work of the construction work with the basement, ground floor and the second floor have been completed in the year and still, construction is yet to be completed and the premises Nos. 104 and 105 on the first floor and also at the premises Nos. 202 and 203 on the second floor and also third floor. It is submitted that the petitioner firm has started tailoring shop in shop-1 on the ground floor which is admeasuring 5 x 10". The petitioner has obtained certificate under the Bombay shops and Establishment Act in his name and is running the said shop since June, 1995, copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-G to this petition. Thus, the only premises which is in use in the whole of the building that is also by the personal use and occupation by the petitioner No. 1. Reading this paragraph, it is clear that the petitioners have not stated as to when the basement, ground floor and second floor have been completed.

( 3 ) IT appears that respondent-Corporation issued Special Notices to the petitioners under provisions contained in Rule 15 (2) read with Rule 20 (2) of the Taxation Rules of Chapter VIII of the Schedule a to the Bombay Provincial Municipal corporations Act of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 4 ) MR. N. M. Kapadia, learned Advocate submitted that in the instant cases, the issue is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of L. M. Patel and Ors. v. Baroda Municipal Corporation, reported in 1995 (1) GCD 751 (Guj. ). He further submitted that no reasonable opportunity is given and, therefore, the order is bad. He further submitted that once the assessment book of a particular year is completed and prepared, thereafter in the subsequent year, the property cannot be taxed for the previous year as the same has not been entered in the assessment book of that particular year in which the property was not entered in the assessment register.

( 5 ) AS against this, Mr. Desai, learned Advocate for the respondent-Municipal corporation submitted that in the instant cases, after completion of the building, the petitioners were required to give notice to the Municipal Commissioner as provided in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII, which reads as under :5. (1) When any new building is erected, or when any building is rebuilt or enlarged, or when any building which has been vacant is reoccupied or when the user of any building is changed, the person primarily liable for the property taxes assessed on the building shall within fifteen days give notice thereof, in writing, to the commissioner

( 6 ) HE further submitted that Sec. 263 of the Act requires that within a period of one month from the completion of erection of a building or execution of any such work as described under Sec. 254 has to deliver or send or cause to deliver or send to the Commissioner at his office notice in writing of such completion accompanied by certificate in the form prescribed in the bye-laws, signed and subscribed in the manner so prescribed and shall give to the Commissioner all necessary facilities for the inspection of such building or of such work and shall apply for permission to occupy the building. Sub-section (2) of this section prohibits any person to occupy or permit to