The main legal point established in the judgment is that property tax assessment must be in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules, and that government circulars do not override statutory provisions.

P. Shanmugam, J.

Petitioners are owners of a 3 storied building in Ward No. 12 of Angamaly Municipality. They have 7 door numbers presently. They were assessed for the first time for property tax in the year 1990 and revised in the general revision made in the year 1991. The Municipality proposed a general revision of tax for the year 1995 to 2001 and issued special notice to the petitioners. Petitioners claimed to have filed their objections. But the 1st respondent confirmed the proposal of the enhancement. Thereafter, appeal preferred before the Standing Committee were disposed of by orders dated 6.1.98. In this Original Petition, they seek to quash Exts. P5 to P14 orders confirming the general revision and for a declaration that the increase of the property tax is excessive and arbitrary.

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be summarised as follows:

(1) The revision and enhancement of the property tax is contrary to the Circular issued by the Government in Ext.P15.

(2) The appeals were disposed of by non-speaking orders and, therefore, they are illegal.

(3) The materials or the basis on which the enhancement was made were not disclosed to the petitioners.

(4) The value of the building has depreciated and, therefore, there is no scope for increase in the annual value.

(5) Enhancement of tax is more than 50% and, therefore, it is excessive.

(6) The Municipality has no jurisdiction to levy and collect library cess.

3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality can be summarised as follows: The 3 storied building is situated in the heart of Angamaly town on the National Highway. Petitioners are running a bar attached hotel on the first floor and the 2nd floor contains 10 rooms run as a lodge. The annual value of the building has been uniformly enhanced by 20% being the existing concrete structure. The rate of tax on the annual value was enhanced from 10 to 13.5% as per the resolution of the Municipality which is marginal and very reasonable. According to them, compared to the actual rental value of the building which is used as a bar attached hotel with lodging facility, the enhancement is very marginal. As a matter of fact, the uniform flat rate fixed has resulted to the advantage of the petitioner. Otherwise, it would be 4 to 5 times more than the normal annual value of the building and according to them, the tax would have been more higher than now fixed. The annual rental value fixed in the quinquennial revision of the year 1991 has become final. Petitioners have not pointed out any grounds or raised any points as to how the enhancement of the annual rental value fixed by the Municipality is erroneous. A mechanical statement of objection stating that tax must be reduced was the only objection raised by the petitioner. The Circular issued by the

Government in the year 1992 is only a guideline and the same will not override the statutory provisions. In any event, they have not exceeded the limit prescribed in the circular.

4. I have heard the counsel at length.

5. Petitioners are owners of a 3 storied building with 7 separate numbers and building assessments. They were assessed to property tax in the year 1990. During the quinquennial revision for the period 1991-92 to 1995-96,1996-97 to 2000-2001 the buildings were reassessed. This Original Petition is concerned with the revision for the 5 years 1996-97 to 2000-2001. Admittedly, the annual value and the assessment fixed in the year 1991-92 to 1995-96 has become final.

6. A brief description of the building and the tax particulars are necessary to appreciate the points that arise for consideration.

7. The Municipality has fixed the annual rental value of the buildings after deducting 20% from its value towards maintenance. Thereafter, tax was determined at 13% of the annual value so fixed. The revision filed by the petitioner as well as the appellate orders have given reliefs t