Gross income from market could be basis.

These are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the records connected with the Demand Notice No. 176 (Assessment No. 9518) for the half year ending 31st March, 1955 and Demand Notice No. 362 (Assessment No. 9518) for the half year ending 31st March, 1956 and Demand Notice No. 112 (Assessment No. 9518, for half year ending 30th September, 1955 for Door No. 177, Hameempuram, Melapalayam and to quash the proceedings of the respondent Municipality relating thereto.

The petitioner is a charitable institution, who owns a private weekly market in Melapalayam. The market consists of land with sheds and buildings bearing municipal door numbers 144 to 177. Upto and during the year 1955-1956 each of the aforesaid numbers had a separate annual value put on it for the purpose of assessing the property tax under section 82 of the Madras District Municipality Act. The total value for Nos. 144 to 176 was Rs. 1,266 and that for No. 177 was Rs. 36, the entire market was thus assessed to Rs. 1,302. On 2nd March, 1956, the petitioner was served with a notice under rule 4 of Schedule IV of the Madras District Municipalities Act containing a proposal to enhance the property tax. That notice was to operate for 3 half years from the second half of 1954-1955. In pursuance of that notice there was an assessment which resulted in an increase of the property tax by about 5 or 6 times. The assessment in regard to numbers 144 to 176 is not challenged now. These writ petitions relate to the assessment of door No. 177 for the second half year of 1954-1955 and for the two half years of 1955-1956. It is unnecessary to refer to the details in regard to the assessment beyond stating that the assessment of the annual value was arrived at on the basis of the levy of licence fee for the market which was 15 per cent of the gross income for the previous year from the market. The licence fee for the market was Rs. 1,275. This was fixed at 15 per cent of the gross income of the market by way of fees. From that the total income from the property, Nos. 144 to 177 was taken to be Rs. 8,526. Deducting the annual rental value of door Nos. 144 to 176 as found in the books the annual rental value for door No. 177 was arrived at a sum of Rs. 7,260. It may be noticed that the assessment in respect of the very same property during the first half of 1954-55 wasonly Rs. 36. The petitioner complains that this assessment was mala fide and was also otherwise without jurisdiction.

It is clear from the above that the assessment was adopted on the basis of the gross income received by the petitioner from the market for the previous year.

Section 260(2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act specifies the kinds of fees that may be levied in a market. It states:

" The council may in any public market levy any one or more of the following fees at such rates and may place the collection of such fees under the management of such persons as may appear to it proper or may farm out such fees (for any period not exceeding three years at a time and) on such terms and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit:

(a) fees for the use of, or for the right to expose goods for sale in, such markets ;

(b) fees for the use of shops, stalls, pens or stands in such markets ;

(c) fees on vehicles or pack animals carrying, or on persons bringing, goods for sale in such market ;

(d) fees on animals brought for sale into, or sold, in such markets ; and

(e) licence fees on brokers, commission agents, weighmen and measurers practising their calling in such markets."

From the above it can be seen that the fees leviable in respect of a market is not always referable to the value of the property as such or the user of the soil. For instance the levy of a fee on vehicles which bring the goods for sale in the market, and on brokers, commission agents and weighmen cannot in any sense be said to be a fee in respect of the occupations of the property. Section 78 of the District Muncipalities