( 1 ) THESE 9 petitions raise common questions on municipal taxation under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (22 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the owners of certain buildings situate within the municipal limits of Sagar Town. They challenge the levy of Municipal taxes, sought to be recovered by the Sagar Town Municipal Council which i shall refer to as 'the Council'. The Council has been levying building tax, lighting tax, education cess, health cess and library cess. The rate of building tax was formerly at 6 per cent on the annual rateable value of the building. The other taxes 'were levied at varied rates on the annual rateable value of the buildings. The Council by its resolution resolved to enhance the rate of taxation and after following the procedure provided by Ss. 95, 96 and 97 of the Act a final notification dt. 10-7-1969, was published bringing into force the new rates of taxation with effect from 1-10-69. The building tax was enhanced to 8 per cent on the annual rateable value of the buildings. There, was also general increase in the lighting tax, water tax general sanitary cess and library cess. The petitioners did not pay the enhanced tax from the year 1969 onwards In 1972, a notice under Section 142 was issued to the petitioners by the Chief Officer of the Council demanding both the arrears of tax and also the taxes for the first part of the year 1972-73. The notices issued to all these petitiqners are more or less similar. It may be sufficient, if I set out the notice issued to the petitioners in WP 3108 1972. It reads :"municipal Taxes for the first year 1972-73. * * * * * "the petitioners apprehending that the tax demanded would be recovered from them by distress and sale ot their property, have approached this Court challenging the validity of the revised rate of building tax and other taxes. ( 3 ) THE primary contention urged by Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petiticners is that the procedure adopted by the Council for levying and collecting higher rates of taxation was illegal and therefore there was no liability on the part of the petitioners to pay the same. ( 3 ) THE primary contention urged by Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petiticners is that the procedure adopted by the Council for levying and collecting higher rates of taxation was illegal and therefore there was no liability on the part of the petitioners to pay the same. ( 4 ) NOW, before dealing with the points raised, it would be convenient to examine the scheme of the Act in regard to the imposition and recovery of municipal Taxes. So far as the procedure for the purpose of imposition of taxes is concerned, it is common ground that the procedure prescribed under Ss. 95 to 97 of the Act, has been duly followed. I now pass on to the provisions relating to the preparation of assessment list. S. 102 states that for assessing taxes imposed in the form of a tax on buildings or lands or both, the Government shall appoint an assessor to discharge his duties under the Act. S. 103 provides for the method by which an assessment list is to be prepared. This section is more relevant and therefore, I set put the same in full. " 103. Preparation of an assessment list.- * * * * * "when the assessment list containing the above particulars is prepared under S. 105, the assessor has to gives public notice of the list and of the place where the list or a copy thereof may be inspected and the persons who are interested in knowing the assessment list of their property shall be at liberty to inspect that list and to make extract therefrom without any charge. Under S. 106, the assessor at the time of the publication of the assessment list simultaneously must give public notice of a date not less than thirty days, inviting objections to the valuation or of assessment which shall be made to the assessor before the time fixed in the notice. All the objections so received, shall be disposed of, after hearing the objections when the objections are thus disposed qf, the assessment list, with the modifications which have been made has to be authenticated and the list so authenticated shall be deposited in the Municipal Office, and shail be open for inspection during office hours to all owners and occupiers of property. The entries in the list so authenticated and deposited shall be accepted as conclusive evidence for the purpose of all municipal taxes of the annual rateable value or other valuation of all buildings and lands to which such entries respectively refer In other words, the process of levying the rates which begins with the provisional assessment list is completed only when the list is authenticated under S. 106 (7) of the Act. Unless this procedure is completed, the Council has no power to demand the property tax. ( 5 ) MR. K I. Bhatta, learned Counsel for redpondent urged that the snnual rateable value of the building since not changed, it would be competent for the Chief Officer to calculate the revised rate of taxation and demand the same from the petitioners. In other words, his contention was that where the annual rateable value at the property remains unaltered, the amount of the property tax on the basis of the revised rates could be calculated without following the procedure provided u Ss. 102 to 106 of the Act. This contention, in my opinion, overlooks the particulars which are required to be mentioned in the assessment list. One of the items which is required to be entered therein, is the amount of tax assessed on buildings and lands and that entry can be accepted as conclusive only when the procedure provided under Ss 104 to 106 is followed with opportunities to the parties to raise their objections, if any. Unless this procedure is completed, there won't be any liability of the owner to pay the property tax. ( 6 ) SS. 103 to 106 of the Act are corresponding to Ss. 78 to 31 of the bombay Municipal Boroughs Act of 1925. Dealing with the scope of the said sections of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act of 1925 in Borough muni, of Amalner v. Pratab Spinning Weaving Co. , 1952 Bom. L. R. 451, Gajendragadkar, j. (as he then was) observed at 458, as follows : "now, in dealing with the first point that the assessment itself is invalid because the provisions of Ss. 78, 80 and 81 have not been complied with, it is necessary to remember that these sections occur in the second topic dealt with by Chap. VII. The first topic deals merely with the imposition of taxes and it provides for the po. 78, 80 and 81 have not been complied with, it is necessary to remember that these sections occur in the second topic dealt with by Chap. VII. The first topic deals merely with the imposition of taxes and it provides for the po. wers of the Municipality to make rules in that behalf and to obtain the sanction of the government for those rules. When the rules are sanctioned, assessment lists have to be prepared in conformity with the said rules, and there can be no doubt that unless the assessment lists are prepared, the liability to pay the rates in question would not arise. The second topic itself makes it clear that it deals first with the assessment of the rates, and then with the liability to pay them. So that there can be no doubt that the liability to pay a rate would not arise merely because rules have been framed by the Municipality in that behalf and they have been properly sanctioned and brought into force. The scheme of the provisions under this topic seems to be that when the rules have been prescribed by the Municipality for the levy of assessment, the first step that the Municipality has to take is to prepare the assessment list. The list thus prepared would be a provisional or a draft list. Then the list has to be notified to the public, giving them an opportunity to object to the list if they so desire. After the objections are received they have to be examined by a committee. The committee has then to confirm the list or modify it in the light of the objections, and when that is done the list has to be authenticated and finalised. " ( 7 ) AGAIN in Gopal Mills Co. v. Broach Borough Muni, (1956) 58 Bom. L. R. 300, the High court of Bombay took a similar view. In that case the rate of building tax was increased and without preparing a fresh assessment list, the Chief officer took it upon himself to amend the assessment list and demanded the revised tax from the owners of the buildings. The Court obseprved that the Chief Officer had no jurisdiction to demand the revised building tax without following the procedure provided under Ss. 78 to 81 of the Bombay municipal Boroughs Act. The Court obseprved that the Chief Officer had no jurisdiction to demand the revised building tax without following the procedure provided under Ss. 78 to 81 of the Bombay municipal Boroughs Act. ( 8 ) IN the present case also since the procedure prescribed under ss. 103 to 106 of the Act, has not been followed by the Council, the Chief officer has no authority to demand and collect the building tax at the revised rate. ( 9 ) THIS takes me on to the question of validity of the lighting tax, water tax, general sanitary cess, and library cess. These are all taxes levied on the annual rateable value of the buildings or lands. Since the annual rateable value of the buildings and lands has not been altered, it is not necessary to follow the procedure provided under Ss. 103 to 106 before levying and collecting the said taxes. The demand relating to these taxes made by the Chief Officer, therefore cannot be questioned. ( 10 ) BEFORE I part with these petitions, I may makef it clear that this order should not come in the way of the Council demanding from the petitioners, the building tax at the old rate till the revised assessment list is properly prepared in the manner set out above. ( 11 ) IN the result, these petitions are allowed. There shall be an order prohibiting the respondent from enforcing the impugned demand of building tax at the revised rate until the Council prepares a new assessment list in accordance with the procedure provided under the Act. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .