The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a tax assessment if there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The judgment does not preclude the authorities from making a fresh assessment according to law.

1. The Corporation of Trivandrum and its Commissioner, defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The suit was filed for a declaration that a revised assessment of property by the Corporation in respect of a building owned by the plaintiff was illegal and for consequential injunction for collecting the tax. The suit has been decreed and hence this appeal.

2. The facts necessary are not in dispute. Building, "Bhaskara Bhavan Tourist Paradise" within the Trivandrum Corporation limits belongs to the plaintiff. It was assessed to property tax on an annual rental value of Rs.10,800/- upto 1971-72. In 1972, quinquennial revision was taken up. The annual rental value was proposed to be fixed at Rs. 49,536/-. The plaintiff submitted his objections. There was a hearing. The Commissioner in the meanwhile visited the property and ascertained that the lodgers paid much higher rent and the rental value shown was extremely low and the building was inadequately assessed. He noticed that even the proposed annual rental value of Rs. 49,536/- was itself low. But without issuing any further notice, he assessed the annual rental value at Rs. 83,120/- and on that basis property tax was fixed at Rs. 13,469.76 from 1972-73 onwards. The plaintiff who pleaded for reduction of the rental value was loaded with greater burden, more than the initial proposal. Ext. A4 is this memo. Attachment notices followed for recovery of tax on this basis for the period 1972-73 to 1976-77. The plaintiff therefore tiled the suit for a declaration that the assessment was illegal, beyond the provisions of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act and for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking any steps for collecting the same.

3. The court below found that the suit was maintainable, the assessment was not in accordance with S.102 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act,30/61 as there was a patent error in the fixation of the annual rental value of the building. He, therefore, granted the declaration and injunction as prayed for but observed that the defendant-Corporation was free to make a re-assessment as per the provisions of the Act.

4. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that in any case the decision of the lower court that there was a violation of S.102 of the Act is wrong.

5. Tax on property is imposed under S.101 of the Act. The procedure for assessment is contained in the IInd Schedule to the Act and R.7, 8 and 9 prescribe the method for effecting quinquennial revision. R.22. 23 and 24 provide the remedy available to the aggrieved assessee. R.23 says that the objector, dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner can appeal to the Standing Committee and then there is a further appeal to the District Court against the decision of the standing committee also.

6. Very often civil court's jurisdiction is invoked to challenge a tax liability to claim protection against steps for recovery of the tax assessed. It is, therefore, necessary to outline the limits of the civil court's jurisdiction in those cases. Fortunately, this does not pose any problem, for it is practically settled by a catena of decisions, including the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court.

7. In Firm Radha Kishan v Ludhiana Municipality (AIR 1963 SC. 1547), quoting from the observation of Willes. J. in Wolverhamston New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford (1859-6 CB (NS) 336) Supreme Court observed thus:

"One is, where there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is affirmed by a statute which gives a special and peculiar form of remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law; there unless the statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication exclude the common law remedy the party suing has his election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second class of case is where the statute gives the right to sue merely, but provide