Short Note : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged the recovery of property tax for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 in excess of 7 per cent of the annual letting value. The petitioner also submitted that the rebate of 5 per cent under section 14 (2-A) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Sthawar Samptti Kar Adhiniyam, 1964, ought to have been allowed to the petitioner for the years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70 and the respondents responds to refund to the petitioner the amount of 5 per cent of tax collected for these years. Held : The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the rate of tax applicable for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 was not ten per cent yet it was not liable to pay tax at that rate because the final assessment list was not revised after coming into force of the amending Act. In the opinion of this Court, the contention must be accepted. A perusal of the provisions in the Adhiniyam goes to show that a property owner is liable to pay tax which is shown as assessed in the assessment list prepared in accordance with sections 7 to 9 of the Adhiniyam. It is not disputed before this Court that in the assessment list, as finalised in accordance with section 9 (3), the tax was shown at the rate of 7 per cent. It was this tax which the petitioner was liable to pay. Therefore, the petitioner could not be made liable for payment of tax at the rate of 10 percent without the revision of the Assessment list. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the amendment introduced in section 4 of the Adhiniyam by which the rate of tax was increased from 7 to 10 per cent. A perusal of section 4, as amended, goes to show that the rate of the tax in an urban area other than the area comprised within the limits of a Cantonment Board is 10 per cent; whereas the rate of tax in an urban area comprised within the limits of a Cantonment Board is 7 per cent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the difference in rate of tax brings about discrimination which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the difference in rate of tax brings about discrimination which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the opinion of this Court, there is no merit whatsoever in this contention. It is well settled that in matters of taxation there is a great deal of flexibility allowed to the Legislature. Moreover, there are good reasons far discrimination in rate of tax applicable to properties in an urban area not included within a Cantonment Board and properties in an urban area included within a Cantonment Board. Cantonment Boards are authorised under section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924, to levy property tax. There is also no prohibition under the Adhiniyam for the Cantonment Board to continue to levy the said tax, whereas there is a bar for imposition of property tax by other local authorities. (see section 36 of the Adhiniyam). As the cantonment Boards continue to exercise the power of levying property tax, the lower rate of tax for lands and buildings situated within the limits of a Cantonment Board has the object of not creating a heavy burden on the owners of those properties. Similarly, as the local authorities in other urban areas are prohibited to impose any property tax, the rate of tax in such areas is higher as compared to the rate of tax applicable in the areas covered by the Cantonment Boards. In the opinion of this Court, there is a good reason for the difference in the rate of tax. Section 4 as amended by the Amending Act No. 3 of 1979, cannot therefore, be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. As regards that the petitioner was entitled to 5 per cent rebate for the years 1966-67 to 1969-70, clause (2-A) of section 14 of the Adhiniyam was substituted by the Amending Act and it came into force from 1st April 1970. Clause (2-A) provides that where the tax or any instalment thereof payable by an assessee is paid by him within the prescribed time and there is no default in payment of tax during the year, the assessee shall be entitled for a substantive provision. This substantive provision would apply prospectively and not retrospectively. The benefit of rebate can only to be obtained from the tax payable for the assessment years from 1970-71. This substantive provision would apply prospectively and not retrospectively. The benefit of rebate can only to be obtained from the tax payable for the assessment years from 1970-71. The benefit of rebate, is not available for the earlier assessment years, although the demand in respect of the tax for these years may have been made subsequent to 1st April 1979. Petition partly allowed.