The main legal point established in the judgment is that the condition of pre-deposit for preferring appeal cannot be held to be ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as full opportunity is given at the time of assessment.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The appellant-writ petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the vires and validity of Rule 14 of Schedule IV of Part V of the Taxation Rules of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, has preferred this Writ Petition.

2. The main plea taken is that Rule 14 of Schedule IV of Part V of the Taxation Rules of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, is null and void, as it does not provide for waiver or exemption for entertaining an appeal before the Taxation Appeal Tribunal in relation to the property tax.

3. The learned single Judge upheld the Rule as intra-vires, but directed the second respondent to issue notice to the assessee and grant an opportunity of personal hearing and follow the principles of natural justice before enhancing the property tax.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records and noticed the relevant provisions.

5. Chapter V of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, deals with Taxation. While Section 99 of the said Act relates to description and class of property tax, Section 100 stipulates the method of assessment of property tax. Under Section 138 of the said Act, the Taxation Rules have been framed under Schedule IV. Under Schedule IV, Part-I.A, the modes of assessment of property tax are enumerated, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

"Schedule Iv.

Taxation Rules

Part-I.A

Assessment Of Property Tax

1-C(1). The Commissioner may, by giving publicity in the local newspapers and otherwise require the owner or the occupier of, any land or building, or a portion thereof to file a return within a period not exceeding one month from the date notified in this behalf by the Commissioner, containing the following particulars with regard to each assessable item, namely:-

(i) the name of the division and the street in which it is situated and the door number;

(ii) description of the assessable item like number of storeys, plinth area in each storey and the extent of vacant land;

(iii) the name of the owner;

(iv) the name of the occupier;

(v) the year in which the assessable item was last assessed and the amount of annual value fixed by the Commissioner;

(vi) the amount of tax now being paid per half-year;

(vii) whether the assessable item is used for residential or non-residential purpose;

(viii) whether the assessable item is wholly rented or partly occupied by the owner and partly rented; and

(ix) the amount received as rent or lease amount per year.

2. If any person fails to file return within the notified time, the Commissioner may authorise any person not below the rank of a Bill Collector to enter upon and make an inspection of the assessable item and prepare the return.

3. The Commissioner shall assess the property tax having regard to,-

(1) the annual value fixed for a building on the date of general revision of the property tax;

(2) the property tax payable by the owner or the occupier on the basis of the particulars filed in the return; and

(3) the property tax payable by the owner or the occupier with reference to the guidelines, if any, issued by the council."

6. Under Schedule IV, Part-V of the Taxation Rules, there is a provision of revision of assessment. As per Rule 14 therein, no appeal can be entertained by the Taxation Appeal Tribunal, unless the appellant deposits in the Corporation the existing tax and also 50% of the difference between the existing tax and the tax as assessed by the Commissioner in the revision. In fact, the said Rule 14 was challenged by the appellant before the Writ Court, which is quoted hereunder:

"14. No appeal shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless the appellant deposits in the Corporation the existing tax and also fifty percent of the difference between the existing tax and the tax as assessed by the Commissioner in the revision."

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner took a plea that at the time of the assessme