Judgment : The petitioner, a Furniture Company, is having its registered office at 37, Poonamallee High Road, Koyambedu, Madras. The premises comes under the Koyambedu Panchayat Union and they have no water supply to the premises. The occupants make their own arrangements for providing water supply. The first respondent has not also made any arrangement for supply of protected water supply to the premises. The Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) supersedes all other connected Acts and the Board is exclusively attending to the needs of the public within the area covered by the Act. The petitioner has referred to the various provisions of the Act and I will make a reference to them, if and when necessary. In this case, the petitioner is primarily concerned with the levy of water tax and the notice issued on 11. 1990, in and by which a huge demand is made as water tax for the assessment years 2/79-80 till 2/89-90. The total amount demanded is Rs.29,429.40 at the rate of Rs.1,337-70 per half year. The notice says that the water and sewerage tax as detailed therein should be paid within 30 days of the date of the bill. The contention of the petitioner is that no demand was ever made for payment of water-tax in respect of the premises at any time, before the impugned notice, dated 11. 1990. It is in fact contended that there was no levy at all as contemplated under the Act, and therefore, the demand is illegal. It is also pointed out that the Board has not provided any facilities, like water supply or sewerage connection to the subject premises. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents are not entitled to demand the water tax. Petitioner refers to Art. 265 of the Constitution of India, read with Sec.84(b) of the Act to argue that no tax can be levied or collected without the authority of law. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents-Board, it is stated that the Koyambedu village was a Panchayat and added to the Madras City in the year 1979. It comes within the Madras City Municipal Corporation limits. Therefore, it is pointed out the Board has jurisdiction over the subject area. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents-Board, it is stated that the Koyambedu village was a Panchayat and added to the Madras City in the year 1979. It comes within the Madras City Municipal Corporation limits. Therefore, it is pointed out the Board has jurisdiction over the subject area. It is contended that the Board has every right to collect water and sewerage tax for the areas notified under Sec.34 of the Act. The Board has been empowered to collect water tax at 7% of the annual value of the building, as assessed by the City Municipal Corporation. The Board also claims that the arrears of tax can be collected by resort to the Revenue Recovery Act. The assessment was made on the basis of the annual rental value fixed by the Corporation of Madras. The counter-affidavit proceeds to say that proper notices for payment of tax had been made earlier. It is only because the taxes have not been paid, that the impugned noticed was issued. 3. When the matter came up for final disposal, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I asked the learned counsel for the Board to produce the records and prove to the satisfaction of the court that assessment and levy had been made at the appropriate time and a demand notice had been served on the petitioner as and when the taxes became due. Learned counsel for the respondents took time and reports today that the records are not available to prove the assessment, levy and demand at the appropriate time. In these circumstances, I have to proceed to dispose of the writ petition on the basis that there was no prior assessment, levy or demand of water tax from the petitioner at any time, except the impugned notice, dated 11. 1990. Let me now refer to the provisions of law as contained in the Act. There are two levies under the Act, one called water tax and sewerage tax and the other is water charges. Here itself I will make it clear that we are not concerned with water charges, which may arise when the Board makes arrangement to give water supply to the area in question. In this case, it is not disputed that water supply has not been provided by the Board for the subject area. Here itself I will make it clear that we are not concerned with water charges, which may arise when the Board makes arrangement to give water supply to the area in question. In this case, it is not disputed that water supply has not been provided by the Board for the subject area. We are therefore concerned only with the assessment and levy of water tax and sewerage tax which can be levied irrespective of the provision of water supply. Sec.34 of the Act provides for the levy of water tax and sewerage tax and it is as follows: “Taxes leviable by the Board: (1) For the purpose of this Act, the Board shall levy on premises situated within its area — .(a) a water tax: and .(b) a sewerage tax. .(2) The taxes mentioned in Sub-sec.(1) shall be levied at such rates as may be prescribed which in the case of water tax shall not be more than twenty per cent and in case of sewerage tax shall not be more than ten per cent of the assessed annual value of the premises. .(3) The Board may, with the sanction of Government, exempt any local area from the whole or portion of the water tax and sewerage tax on the ground that such area is not deriving any or the full benefit from the water apply or sewerage system, or the Board may remit a portion of such taxes not exceeding one half on the ground that the premises concerned has remained vacant. Explanation: For the purposes of this chapter the expression ‘premises’ shall mean any land or building. .(4) Where water tax or drainage tax is comprised in the property tax or house-tax levied and collected by the existing authority such existing authority shall reduce the property tax or house tax by an amount equal to the amount attributable to water tax and drainage tax.” Sec.35 provides for the manner of the assessment of the annual value and says that till such time as the annual valuation is determined under the Act, the annual value of a building for the purpose of assessment shall be the annual value as assessed by a Municipal Corporation or Municipality or Panchayat. The tax is taken as a percentage of the annual value of a building or land. Similarly, the sewerage tax also is taken as a percentage of the annual value. The tax is taken as a percentage of the annual value of a building or land. Similarly, the sewerage tax also is taken as a percentage of the annual value. Therefore, the Board has to determine the annual value and then adopt percentage of tax. But it is not disputed that the Board has not started making assessment of annual value as provided under Sec.35 of the Act and they are adopting only the annual value as made by the Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Panchayat. Therefore, the question of assessment does not arise because the annual value as provided by the Municipality or Corporation is adopted by the Board. But the Board has a duty under Sec.34 of the Act to levy tax by adopting the annual value. Unless there is a levy by the Board, there cannot be a demand for payment of the water tax or sewerage tax. In fact, in respect of every half year, the City Municipal Corporation Act says that the tax should be demanded before the end of the half year and the liability of the tax-payer arises only when a demand is issued on the basis of a levy. In this particular case, there is absolutely no record to show whether there was any levy at all at any point of time, leave alone a demand notice. Consequently, I have to hold that the impugned notice, dated 11. 1990 is totally without jurisdiction and illegal. Accordingly that writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Liberty is given to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law and demand the tax, if they are so authorised under the Act. If any amount has been recovered from the petitioner under orders of this Court, the same shall be returned to the petitioner subject of course to say future demands that may be made by the respondents in which event the Board can make some adjustment of the amount already recovered.