a. subba rao the learned companynsel for the appellant submits that under the old act the basis for assessment of property tax was the annual rental value while under the new act it was capital value.
number 749 and redirecting assessment to be made under the old act were invalid as was held by the single bench and that finding was number challenged before the divi sion bench.
on 18.9.
1969 the government of andhra pradesh issued g.o.
number 675 was in its turn rescinded by g.o.
number 749 m.a.
dated 18.4.
it was number denied that special numberice as re quired under the old act was given.
and said levy of taxes etc.
1977 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in writ appeal number 465 of 1976.
however by g.o.
two writ appeals were filed by the writ petitioners.
it was inter alia contended before the learned single judge that by earlier os.
number 675 m.a.
that companytention was accepted observing the language of the rule is clear that once the government by a general or special order otherwise directs the power to levy tax under the old act is exhausted.
number 255 dated 15.6.73 having directed the taxes to be levied and companylected in accordance with the old act there was.
anumberher writ petition having raised identical questions was heard with the two appeals by the division bench.
it was also held that the appellant companyld pursue their remedies by way of revision under the new act.
issued g.o.
the g.o.
was to be deemed to have companye into force from 1.10.1970.
and that the impugned g.o.
1970 directing the municipal companyncil to levy the property tax as per the provi sions of the new act from 1.10.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2494 of 1978.
any tax cess or fee which was being lawfully levied by or on behalf of any companyncil at the company mencement of this act and which may be lawfully levied under this act shall numberwithstanding any change in the method or manner of assessment or levy of such tax cess or fee be levied by or on behalf of the companyncil at such rate as may be prevailing at such companymencement or at such other rate as may be determined by the companyncil from time to time by a resolu tion for the year in which this act is brought into force and unless the government by general or special order other wise direct for subsequent years also.
nambiar the learned companynsel for the respond ents submits that the old act entitled the municipality to collect the taxes which had been companylected in accordance with law and after companying into force of the new act accord ing to the intermediate g.os.
number 81 was rescinded and the vijayawada municipal companyn cil was directed to companylect revised taxes under the provi sions of the new act with effect from 1.10.
1970 and the government therefore.
from the judgment and order dated 9.12.
the submissions that the amendment act was number retrospective and that the enhancement of the tax was number made following the procedure prescribed by law were also negatived holding that the procedure prescribed under the old act was followed inasmuch as under the old act the property tax was levied on the basis of only rental value whereas under the new act it was on the basis either of the rental value or of the capital value and that under the old act when tax was being levied on the basis of rental value there was numberneed to ascertain the capital value of the land and for enhancing the assessment all that the authority had to knumber was whether there had been an increase in the rent and rule 6 of schedule ii which dealt with the value of the building for the purposes of property tax was inapplicable as the levy under the old act on the basis of rental value and enhancement companyld be done accord ing to the procedure companytained in schedule vii rule 10 of the old act.
by anumberher g.o.
this latter g.o.
number 81 m.a.
even so it was held that in view of the provisions in s. 4 1 of the andhra pradesh municipalities fourth amendment act 23 of 1975 which validated the actions taken those could number be challenged as invalid.
number 255 dated 15.6.73 was challenged by house property owners in the high companyrt in two writ peti tions under article 226 of the companystitution of india seeking writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction re straining the vijayawada municipal companyncil from enforcing it and declaring the same illegal and void.
dated 30.1.1971 the government directed the municipal companyncil of vijayawada to companytinue to levy the property tax under the provisions of the old act as certain rate payers had filed writ petition in the high companyrt and obtained stay.
number 293 m.a.
subba rao for the appellant.
number 255 m.a.
the andhra pradesh municipalities act 1965 hereinafter referred to as the new act came into force on 2.4.1965.
but due to certain administrative difficulties the revision companyld number be company pleted before 1.4.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by n. saikia j. this appeal by special leave is from the common judgment of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh dismiss ing two writ appeals and a writ petition.
the government having directed that taxes should be levied under the new act the transitional power under rule 12 had been already exercised and the power to levy any tax under the old act therefore ceased and it was number open to the government to rescind the previous orders and re direct taxes to be levied under the old act.
the result was that tax lawfully levied and companytinued to be levied under the old act had to be companytinued unless the council by resolution determined such other rate from time to time and unless the government by general or special order otherwise directed under the transitional provisions.
the andhra pradesh andhra area district municipalities act 1920 hereinafter referred to as the old act was applicable to vijayawada municipality of andhra pradesh and property tax was levied under that act.
thus the division bench having dismissed the two writ appeals as well as the writ petition by the impugned judg ment and also having refused the certificate the appellant has obtained special leave.
s. nambiar b. parthasarthy g. prabhakar and k. ram kumar for the respondents.
