JUDGMENT Binayok Nath Banerjee, J. 1. The petitioner company is the owner of 17 premises numbered as 21, 23, 25A, 25B, 27A, 27B, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, 55 and 57, Park Street, Ward No. 53, in the town of Calcutta. 2. The petitioner says that there was a general revaluation of all lands and buildings in Ward No. 53, made some time prior to 26.6.1954, and the fact was notified in the press. As a result of the general valuation, the petitioner says, the previous valuation came to an end. 3. With effect from the second quarter 1954-55, the then assessor to the respondent Corporation amalgamated the different premises of the petitioner in the following manner and also imposed the following annual values thereon:- (a) Premises Nos. 21 and 23, Park Street, into one premises numbered as 21, Park Street, annual value Rs. 23,722/- (b) Premises Nos. 25A, 25B and 27A, Park Street, into one premises numbered as 27A, Park Street annual value Rs. 2,17,023/- (c) Premises Nos. 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 55 and 57, Park Street, into one premises numbered as 29, Park Street annual value Rs 79,097/- 4. The petitioner was informed of the amalgamation and of the new valuation by three notices under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, all dated 6.7.1954. The petitioner objected to the amalgamation and imposition of new valuation, but failed to get any relief before the assessor to the respondent Corporation. Thereupon, the petitioner moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule, being Matter No. 135 of 1954. The said Rule was made absolute by Sinha, J. (as he then was), on 5.12.1955, in the manner hereinafter indicated. Thereupon, the petitioner moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule, being Matter No. 135 of 1954. The said Rule was made absolute by Sinha, J. (as he then was), on 5.12.1955, in the manner hereinafter indicated. "It is ordered that the said respondents their servants and agents be and they are hereby prohibited and restrained until further order of this Court from giving effect to the special notice issued by the said respondent-A. Bhattacharjee upon the said applicant company under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and dated the 6.7.1954 and also from giving effect to any amalgamation of the municipal premises contained in the said notice without following the procedure in accordance with law, and it is further ordered that the order resulting in the said amalgamation and also the impugned notice and the proceedings initiated thereby be and the same are hereby quashed, and it is further ordered that this order shall not in any way prevent the said respondent from now proceeding to act in accordance with law." 5. According to the petitioner, after the passing of the order quashing the valuation, there remained no valuation for the premises for the purpose of being assessed to consolidated rates with effect from the second quarter 1954-55. 6. When things were standing in this position, the then Commissioner of the respondent Corporation issued notices under section 175 read with section 207(2), Proviso (i) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, informing the petitioner that he proposed to amalgamate certain premises of the petitioner and to value the amalgamated premises under section 172(3)(b) read with section 174(4) of the Act, with effect from the second quarter 1954-55. The notices issued by the Commissioner were:- (a) Notice dated March 9, 1957, proposing to amalgamate Premises Nos. 21 and 23, Park Street, into Premises No. 21 Park Street. (b) Notice dated March 9, 1957, proposing to amalgamate Premises Nos. 25A, 25B, and 27A, Park Street, into Premises No. 27A, Park Street. (c) Notice dated March 12, 1957, proposing to amalgamate Premises No. 29, 31 and portion of Premises No. 47, Park Street, into Premises No. 29, Park Street. (d) Notice dated March 12, 1957, proposing to amalgamate Premises No. 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45 and portion of 47, Park Street, into premises No. 33, Park Street. 7. (c) Notice dated March 12, 1957, proposing to amalgamate Premises No. 29, 31 and portion of Premises No. 47, Park Street, into Premises No. 29, Park Street. (d) Notice dated March 12, 1957, proposing to amalgamate Premises No. 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45 and portion of 47, Park Street, into premises No. 33, Park Street. 7. The petitioner objected to the said notices, in writing, on 20.7.1957, on the ground that the said Commissioner had no jurisdiction or power to amalgamate the said premises and as such the notices were illegal. The objection notwithstanding, the then assessor of the respondent Corporation sent to the petitioner the following special notices, under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act 1951, intimating to the petitioner the valuation assessed on the petitioner's premises, on the basis of estimated rent less statutory allowance, and further intimating to the petitioner that the said valuation would remain in force from the second quarter 1954-55 until further valuation:- (a) Notice dated March 31, 1960 in respect of Premises No. 21, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 10,837/- (b) Notice dated March 31, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 23, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 13,152/- (c) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 25A, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 1,42,395/- (d) Notice dated April 6, 1960 in respect of Premises No. 25B, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 47,274/- (e) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 27A, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 27,353/- (f) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 29, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 3,737/- (g) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 31, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 4,102/- (h) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 33, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 2,425/- (i) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 35, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 4,444/- (j) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 37, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 2,694/- (k) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No, 39, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 2,694/- (l) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 45 Park Street-Valuation Rs. 4,145/- (m) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 45, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 2,205/- (n) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 47, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 24,780/- (o) Notice, dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 55, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 4,145/- (m) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 45, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 2,205/- (n) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 47, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 24,780/- (o) Notice, dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 55, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 9,939/- (p) Notice dated April 6, 1960, in respect of Premises No. 57, Park Street-Valuation Rs. 18,346/- 8. On 25.4.1960, the petitioner filed written objection under section 181 of the Act, to the notices, because according to the petitioner, (a) the assessor had no jurisdiction to make the said valuations and assessments on the said premises and that the notices were illegal and issued without jurisdiction, (b) that there was no valuation of the premises and that the assessor had no jurisdiction to effect on increase over the non-existing valuation, (c) that no notice under section 178 having been issued or published, after the amalgamation and the valuation had been quashed by this Court, the assessor had no jurisdiction to issue the said notices on retrospective assessment with effect from the second quarter 1954-55. 9. In the meantime, on 18.4.1960, the Assistant Assessor (II) wrote 4 letters to the petitioners stating that the 4 notices of amalgamation, some dated 9.3.1960 some dated 12.3.1960, stood cancelled and the premises would be separately valued. A specimen copy of the letter is herein below set out:- Re: Premises No. 21, Park Street. Dear Sir, I am directed to inform you that the previous notice dated 9.3.1957, proposing amalgamation of Premises Nos. 21 and 23, Park Street, as Premises No. 21, Park Street, with effect from the second quarter of 1954-55 stands hereby cancelled. Please note that the individual premises so amalgamated are being revalued separately with effect from the second quarter of 1954-55 under section 172(3)(b) read with section 172(4) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. 10. On objection to the valuation by the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 purporting to act under section 182, passed orders, on 22.3.1963, restoring the existing valuation (that is to say pre 1954 valuation) in place of the increased valuation, with effect from the second quarter, 1954-55. In the result:- (a) Premises No. 21, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 6,998/- (b) Premises No. 23, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 7,873/- (c) Premises No. 25A, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. In the result:- (a) Premises No. 21, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 6,998/- (b) Premises No. 23, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 7,873/- (c) Premises No. 25A, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 97,102/- (d) Premises No. 25B, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 24,494/- (e) Premises No. 27A, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 17,058/- (f) Premises No. 29, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 2,916/- (g) Premises No. 31, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 2,673/- (h) Premises No. 33, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 2,187/- (i) Premises No. 35, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 3,402/- (j) Premises No. 37, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 1,336/- (k) Premises No. 43, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 2,430/- (l) Premises No. 45, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 1,458/- (m) Premises No. 47, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 15,746/- (n) Premises No. 55, Park Street, stood valued at Rs 6,804/- (o) Premises No. 57, Park Street, stood valued at Rs. 9,234/- 11. The petitioner disputed the validity of each of the orders firstly on the ground that the respondent No. 3 lacked jurisdiction or acted arbitrarily in making the orders and as such the orders were nullities, secondly on the ground that, in any event, the respondent No. 3 had no power to restore the old valuation, and thirdly, on the ground that the valuations not being done during the currency of the valuation period were nullities. 12. While the valuation for the period 1954-55 upto 1959-60 was standing in the above state, the assessor to the respondent Corporation issued, on 12.9.1960, special notices under section 180 of the Act to the petitioner intimating assessment of the following increased annual valuations on the petitioner's premises with effect from the second quarter, 1960-61. (a) Premises No. 21, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 11,146/- (b) Premises No. 23, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 13,152/- (c) Premises No. 25A, Park Street, Annual value Rs, 2,07,302/- (d) Premises No. 25B, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 50,024/- (e) Premises No, 27A, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 37,961/- (f) Premises No. 27B, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 27,000/- (g) Premises No. 29, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 417/- (h) Premises No. 31, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 5,031/- (i) Premises No. 33, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 2,425/- (j) Premises No. 35, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 50,024/- (e) Premises No, 27A, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 37,961/- (f) Premises No. 27B, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 27,000/- (g) Premises No. 29, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 417/- (h) Premises No. 31, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 5,031/- (i) Premises No. 33, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 2,425/- (j) Premises No. 35, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 4,445/- (k) Premises No. 37, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 2,940/- (l) Premises No. 39, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 2,940 (m) Premises No. 43, Park Street, Annual value Rs 4,743/- (n) Premises No. 45, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 2,449/- (o) Premises No. 47, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 31,604/- (p) Premises No. 55, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 20,061/- (q) Premises No. 57, Park Street, Annual value Rs. 19,538/- 13. The petitioner filed objection to the said notices, inter alia, on the ground that the notices were illegal or without jurisdiction that there was no previous valuation of the said premises and the respondent No. 4 had no jurisdiction to issue the notices or to assess that notices under section 178 not having been issued or published after the amalgamation order had been quashed by this Court, the respondent No. 5 lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices or to increase the valuation. The objection by the petitioner resulted in an order of reduction of valuation of the premises by the respondent No. 3 to the following effect from the second quarter 1960-61:- (1) Premises No. 21, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 8,398/- (2) Premises No. 23, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 9,469/- (3) Premises No. 25A, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 1,33,434/- (4) Premises No. 25B, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 29,621/- (5) Premises No. 27A, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 22,378/- (6) Premises No. 27B, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 20,586/- (7) Premises No. 29, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 2,916/- (8) Premises No. 31, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 2,673/- (9) Premises No. 33, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 2,187/- (10) Premises No. 35, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 3,642/- (11) Premises No. 37, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 1,616/- (12) Premises No. 39, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 1,616/- (13) Premises No. 43, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 2,940/- (14) Premises No. 45, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 2,187/- (10) Premises No. 35, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 3,642/- (11) Premises No. 37, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 1,616/- (12) Premises No. 39, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 1,616/- (13) Premises No. 43, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 2,940/- (14) Premises No. 45, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 1,754/- (15) Premises No. 47, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 19,299/- (16) Premises No. 55, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 8,165/- (17) Premises No. 57, Park Street, valuation reduced to Rs. 11,502/- 14. The aforesaid orders were communicated to the petitioner by letters dated 1.4.1963. The petitioner disputes also the legality of the reduced valuation on the ground that the respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to pass the orders and that the orders were illegal orders and nullities. 15. The first branch of the petitioner's grievance is thus against the validity of the different assessment orders. The other branch of the grievance is directed against the rate bills. The petitioner says that on 12.9.1959, the respondent Corporation and the respondent Commissioner caused to be sent to the petitioner rate bills, all dated 21.8.1959 beginning from second quarter 1954-55 to first quarter 1960-61. The petitioner condemns the rate bills on several grounds, namely, (1) that there was no valuation of the premises when the bills were presented, (2) that the amalgamation order was not cancelled before 18.4.1960 and bills on non-amalgamation basis could not be made out on 21.8.1959 (3) that the respondent Corporation acted illegally and without jurisdiction in assessing consolidated rates on the premises without following the prescribed procedure under the Calcutta Municipal Act. 16. Out of mistake, the petitioner says, it paid Rs. 2,24,364.36 towards some of the said bills and claims to be entitled to refund thereof. 17. With the aforesaid grievances, the petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus calling upon the respondent to cancel the orders of restoration of valuation dated 22.3.1963, the order of reduction of valuation also dated 22.3.1963 and the rate bills sent to the petitioner. The petitioner further prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders and the said rate bills. The petitioner also prayed for writ of prohibition calling upon the respondents to forbear from acting under the said orders. The petitioner lastly prayed for an order of refund of a sum of Rs. The petitioner further prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders and the said rate bills. The petitioner also prayed for writ of prohibition calling upon the respondents to forbear from acting under the said orders. The petitioner lastly prayed for an order of refund of a sum of Rs. 2,24,364.36 paid towards some of the rate bills out of mistake. 18. There are two affidavit-in-opposition, one dated 22.1.1964 and the other a supplementary affidavit, dated 21.12.1964 by the respondent No. 5 the Assessor. There is little dispute as to the facts pleaded in the petition but allegations that the several actions taken by the respondent Corporation were wrongful or illegal were hotly disputed. It was admitted that the valuation on amalgamation basis was irregular and therefore the same was cancelled and a revaluation was made under section 172(3)(b) read with section 174 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The said revaluation again was set aside and the old valuation as existing at the time of commencement of the Act of 1951 was restored. The petitioner, it was contended did not suffer any prejudice by reason of all that were done. It was stated that the valuation made with effect from the second quarter 1960-61 and the notices issued on that basis were all legal, valid and binding on the petitioner, who did not appeal against the valuation and thus accepted the same and also voluntarily paid the rate bills prepared on the revaluation basis. 19. On the basis of the pleadings, the following position is beyond dispute. There were separate annual valuations assessed on the several premises, mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, at the time when the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 came into force. Then come a general valuation under section 172 of the Act. Some of the petitioner premises were amalgamated, as hereinbefore stated and annual values were imposed on amalgamated premises. This action obviously offended against section 175 of the Act and was quashed by this Court, by an order made dated 5.12.1955, in the Matter of 135 of 1954. Even thereafter attempts at amalgamation and revaluation proceeded, as if on inertis basis, until final wisdom dawned upon the Corporation on 18.4.1960 and the amalgamation and revaluation on that basis were cancelled. 20. Even thereafter attempts at amalgamation and revaluation proceeded, as if on inertis basis, until final wisdom dawned upon the Corporation on 18.4.1960 and the amalgamation and revaluation on that basis were cancelled. 20. That first chapter of the petitioner's grievance thus came to an end but a second chapter started, because in 1960 the Corporation wanted separately to revalue the several premises with effect from the second quarter 1954-55. The respondent Corporation, acting under section 182 of the Act, restored the valuation, as existing, prior to the amalgamation by several orders dated 22.3.1963. 21. In the next period of general valuation commencing from second quarter 1960-61, a new and increased valuation, as hereinbefore indicated, was imposed upon the several premises and the said fact was intimated to the petitioner by notices dated 12.9.1960. The petitioner objected to the increased valuation on jurisdictional grounds, as hereinbefore stated. The result, however, was that, by orders dated 22.3.1963 there were some reductions in the valuation made. 22. The first ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the amalgamation orders were nullities and valuations made on that basis were equally so. The petitioner is right in this submission. Proceeding further, the petitioner says that the effect of the general valuation in 1954 was cessation of the valuation existing prior to the valuation of 1954, and rate bills for the period from the second quarter 1954-55 prepared on the basis of pre 1954 valuation were all nullities and any payment made by the petitioner towards such void bills must be treated to be refundable. 23. I am unable to uphold this argument. Chapter XI of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 deals with taxation. Section 165 of the Act of 1951 (corresponding to section 124 of the Act of 1923) empowers the Corporation to impose consolidated rates on all lands and buildings in Calcutta. Such rates had been imposed upon petitioners several premises. Section 172 of the Act lays down determination of the annual value and duration of valuation in the following language. Section 165 of the Act of 1951 (corresponding to section 124 of the Act of 1923) empowers the Corporation to impose consolidated rates on all lands and buildings in Calcutta. Such rates had been imposed upon petitioners several premises. Section 172 of the Act lays down determination of the annual value and duration of valuation in the following language. "Section 172 – (1) The valuation of any land or building situated in the several wards, the respective numbers and bounderies of which arc: specified in Schedule "V" which has been made before the commencement of this Act, and which is in force at the commencement of this Act shall remain in force and he deemed to be the valuation for the purpose of assessment of consolidated rate on such land or building under this Act until a fresh valuation is made under this Act. (2) A general valuation under this Act shall by made by the Commissioner or, if the State Government so directs by such agency as the State Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Such valuation shall have effect from the beginning of the quarter following that in which a notice under section 178 is issued and shall remain in force in respect of each ward for a period of six years, and may be revised thereafter at the termination of successive periods of six years. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the following conditions shall apply in the several cases hereinafter specified, namely:- (a) * * * (b) Any land or building the valuation of which has been cancelled on the ground of irregularity, or which for any other reason has no annual value assigned to it under this Act, may be valued by the Commissioner at any time during the currency of the period prescribed in respect of such land or building by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). (4) The valuation or revaluation of any land or building made under clauses (b), (c), (d) or (e) of sub-section (3) shall remain in force for the unexpired portion of the period prescribed by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). (4) The valuation or revaluation of any land or building made under clauses (b), (c), (d) or (e) of sub-section (3) shall remain in force for the unexpired portion of the period prescribed by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). The valuation of any land or building made under clause (b) of sub-section (3) for cancellation of a previous valuation on the ground of irregularity shall take effect from the beginning of the quarter from which the previous valuation which has been canceled would have taken effect. The revaluation of any building under clause (d) of sub-section (3) shall take effect from the commencement of the quarter following the date on which the application of the owner or occupier for such revaluation is received by the Commissioner." 24. Section 180 of the Act speaks of special notice when valuation is made for the first time or increased on revaluation. Section 181 of the Act speaks of notice of objection by any person dissatisfied with the valuation proposed. Section 182 of the Act speaks of an investigation of objection by the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. Section 207 speaks of how for payment of consolidated rates is affected objection to valuation in the following language:- "Section 207 – (1) When on objection to a valuation has been made under section 181, the consolidated rate shall, pending the final determination of the objection, be payable on the previous valuation the usual manner. (2) If when the objection has been finally determined, the previous valuation is altered, then:- Any sum paid in excess shall be refunded or allowed to be set off against any present or future demand of the Corporation under this Act." 25. Now, it is beyond dispute that there was a valuation for the disputed premises prior to the valuation on amalgamation basis made with effect from the second quarter 1954-55. That valuation was ordinarily to remain force until a fresh valuation was made. It was contended before me that the fresh valuation in 1954 had the effect of bringing to an end the pre 1954 valuation. This contention is not right, because the fresh valuation as in sub-section (1) of section 172 means lawful valuation. Since the valuation on amalgamation basis was not lawful the 1954 valuation had not the effect of bringing to an end the pre 1954 valuation. This contention is not right, because the fresh valuation as in sub-section (1) of section 172 means lawful valuation. Since the valuation on amalgamation basis was not lawful the 1954 valuation had not the effect of bringing to an end the pre 1954 valuation. Under section 207(1) consolidated rates were payable on the basis of previous valuation. 26. It was next contended that the power of valuation by the Commissioner of the Corporation, on cancellation of a valuation for irregularity, was a limited power exercisable, under section 172(3)(b), during the currency of a valuation period. It was submitted that the cancellation of the valuation on amalgamation basis was made on 18.4.1960 and the restoration of the old valuation was made on 22.3.1963, which was beyond the valuation period. I do not find any substance in this contention as well. If the valuation of the premises, on amalgamation basis, had no legal effect, and I hold that it had not then the pre 1954 valuation was in law continuing and the order of restoration of valuation was not necessary, excepting possibly for administrative purposes, for example, for making the necessary correction in the assessment book. Thus, the entire formality with which the resort back to the pre 1954 valuation was made was a window dressing. Even without such a formal order, the same result would have followed as on formal cancellation of the valuation on amalgamation basis. Levy of tax on the basis of the pre 1954 valuation, with effect from second quarter 1954-55, was thus permissible. 27. I now turn to the notices under section 180 regarding the revaluation of the premises with effect from second quarter 1960-61. The valuation was increased over the pre 1954 valuation. The petitioner's objection to this valuation comes under the following broad heads:- (a) That the procedure as in section 178 of the Act had not been followed before notices under section 180 were issued. (b) That there being no valuation of the premises in existence, the respondent No. 5 had no jurisdiction to issue notices under section 180. (c) That at the time when the notices under section 180 were issued, the amalgamated premises only were in existence and not the separate premises in respect of which the notices were issued and as such the notices were bad. 28. (c) That at the time when the notices under section 180 were issued, the amalgamated premises only were in existence and not the separate premises in respect of which the notices were issued and as such the notices were bad. 28. The fallacy of this objection lies in making the assumption that the pre 1954 valuation of the petitioner's premises came to an end after the said premises were valued on amalgamation basis with effect from the second quarter 1954-55. I have already observed that the valuation on amalgamation basis had no effect because of illegalities attaching thereto and therefore the pre 1954 valuation continued. Therefore, the petitioner's idea that there being no existing valuation of the said premises, no notice under section 180 could be issued is wrong. Similarly, if the amalgamation an order was illegal the effect of it was that the premises were never amalgamated. The petitioner's idea about the invalidity of the notices under section 180, in respect of the separate premises, issued at a time when the amalgamation order to did not stand formally canceled, is also wrong because the premises must be deemed to have never been amalgamated. Then again, the procedure as in section 178 is attracted when the valuation is made under section 172. The increase in valuation in respect of petitioner's premises, made in 1960, was not made under section 172. Therefore, the procedure as in section 178 was not attracted. 29. If this be the legal position, then the objection that the rate bills from the second quarter 1954-55 to the second quarter 1963-64 (particulars whereof appear in Annexure 3 to the petition) are nullities, cannot be upheld. The only valuation that was subsisting in respect of the petitioner's premises was the pre 1954 valuation and on the basis of that subsisting valuation rate bills could be drawn up and paid, pending the disposal of objection by the rate payer petitioner. This appears to in the scheme of levy of taxation under Chapter XI and particularly under section 207 of the Act. 30. Although this is so, notices under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, all dated 31.3.1960 (Annexure E to the petition) purporting to increase the valuation with effect from the second quarter 1954-55 have an infirmity attached to them. The premises could be revalued and the valuation thereon increased prospectively in each period of valuation. 30. Although this is so, notices under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, all dated 31.3.1960 (Annexure E to the petition) purporting to increase the valuation with effect from the second quarter 1954-55 have an infirmity attached to them. The premises could be revalued and the valuation thereon increased prospectively in each period of valuation. But to increase the valuation in 1960, with effect from the second quarter 1954-55 was not authorised by law. During the period, second quarter 1954-55 to the date of notice under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, pre 1954 valuation continued. The notices under section 180 were bad to this extent that they sought to increase the valuation retrospectively with effect from the second quarter 1954-55. The orders which were issued on the petitioner's objection to the aforesaid notices did not cure the defects, inasmuch as the valuations of the premises were reduced with effect from the second quarter 1960-61 only. 31. This being so, there is no ground for calling upon the respondent to cancel the order for restoration of the old valuation. On the valuation based on amalgamation failing the old valuation continued. On the failure of the valuation based on amalgamation the respondent became entitled to act under the order dated 5.12.1955, made in Matter No. 135 of 1954 and also under the provisions of Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The respondent acted as directed and issued notices under section 180 of the Act, on 31.3.1960, purporting to increase the valuation. Ultimately, however, the respondent partially upheld the objection of the petitioner and imposed a reduced valuation. Thus, there is no ground for quashing the order of reduction of valuation. The rate bills in so far as they were based on the pre 1954 valuation until such time as the reduced valuation came into force are unexceptionable and cannot be interfered with. 32. In the result, I find no ground to uphold the several contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, excepting that taxes at any rate in excess of pre 1954 valuation cannot be realized from the petitioner for the period prior to the second quarter 1960-61. All sums paid by the petitioner towards rate bills shall now be adjusted on the basis indicated above. This rule succeeds to the limited extent indicated in the last preceding paragraph, but otherwise fails and stands discharged. All sums paid by the petitioner towards rate bills shall now be adjusted on the basis indicated above. This rule succeeds to the limited extent indicated in the last preceding paragraph, but otherwise fails and stands discharged. There will be no order as to the costs.