( 1 ) THE respondent/vijayawada Municipal corporation issued a notice dated 29-3-1985 to the appellant herein purporting to be one issued under Section 220 (2) of the hydererahad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short the Act ), which Act was made applicable to the respondent/ corporation by virtue of Act 23 of 1981. As per the said notice the respondent fixed the net rateable value of the property owned by the appellant at Rs. 2,69,962. 00 and therefore proposed to levy half yearly tax of rs. 91,247. 12, though in the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of the respondent-Corporation dated 10-10-2001, it is stated that the above tax is only annual tax on the property, but by mistake it was shown as half yearly tax. So for the purpose of the present case, I will proceed on the basis that the tax of Rs. 91,247. 12 is only the annual tax for the property in question. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the said proposal, the appellant herein carried the matter in revision. The revisional authority by its order dated 30-6-1987 determined the net rateable value of the property in question at rs. 2,16,000,00 and consequentially the annual tax got reduced to Rs. 73,008. 00. Not satisfied with the decision of the revisional authority, an appeal is preferred by the appellant herein under Section 282 of the act before the learned Subordinate Judge, vijayawada. The learned Subordinate Judge by judgment dt. 22-6-1992 dismissed the appeal. Hence the present second miscellaneous appeal. ( 3 ) BEFORE I proceed to examine the merits of the appeal, a brief examination of the relevant provisions of the Act is required. ( 4 ) SECTION 197 of the Act authorizes the corporation to impose various kind of taxes enumerated in the said section. One of mem is the tax on lands and buildings. Subsection (3) of Section 197 of the Act declares that the taxes specified in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be assessed and levied in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the rules made there under Section 199 of the Act, provides for various categories of taxes that could be levied on lands and buildings falling within the scope of this act and it further stipulates that such taxes shall be levied at such percentage of the reteabale value as may fixed by the corporation. ( 5 ) THE expression rateable value is defined in Section 2 (48) of the Act, rateable value means the value of any building or land fixed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder for the purpose of assessment to property taxes. ( 6 ) SECTION 212 of the Act deals with the determination of the rateable value. Broadly speaking the rateabale value is the annual rental value of the land and buildings i,e. , gross annual rent at which the property reasonably be expected to be let out, less certain deductions specified in Sec, 212 of the Act. Sections 213 to 224 deal with the procedure to be adopted by the Corporation for the purpose of determining the rateable value of the properties to be taxed by the corporation. Section 214 stipulates that the commissioner of the Corporation shall maintain a book called assessment Book and the Commissioner is obliged to make entries for every financial year of the various details prescribed in the said section. One of such items is the reteable value of each of the building and land determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The other sections provide for the mechanism by which the determination is made. The details of which may not be necessary for the purpose of this case. ( 7 ) FROM the above and in view of the language, employed in Section 199 of the act, which mandates that the tax on lands and buildings shall be levied at such percentage determined by the Corporation on the rateable value of the property, it follows that unless the rateable value of the property is determined there cannot be any levy of the tax. It is not clear from the record of the instant case as to when the rateable value of the property in question was determined at Rs. 2,69,962. 00, as mentioned earlier. But, from the record, it appears, for the first time, in the notice dt. 29-3-1985, referred to earlier, the appellant was informed that the rateable value of the property was determined and the corporation proposes to levy tax of rs. 91,247. 12 on such rateable value. Apart from that the said notice also makes it clear that the proposed tax is sought to be collected with effect from 1-4-1984, till further assessment notice in that regard is issued. 91,247. 12 on such rateable value. Apart from that the said notice also makes it clear that the proposed tax is sought to be collected with effect from 1-4-1984, till further assessment notice in that regard is issued. In substance, the notice dt. 29-3-1985 says that the tax mentioned therein is proposed to be collected with effect from 1-4-1984. ( 8 ) SEC. 198 of the Act contemplates that whenever the Corporation proposes to levy tax as contemplated under Section 197, for the first time or proposed to vary the existing rate of tax, the Commissioner of the corporation should publish a notice in the a. P. State Gazette and in the local newspapers signifying the intention of the corporation and giving some reasonable time, not less than one month from the date of such publication in the Gazettee, to enable the aggrieved persons to submit their objections. The section further contemplates that the Corporation after receiving the objections, consider such objections and determine by a resolution to levy the tax. The section also mandates that such resolution by the Corporation shall specify the rate of tax, the date from which the tax is sought to be levied and the period of levy. Sub-section (2) of the Section 198 further mandates that determination made by the Corporation of the abovementioned factors shall once again be notified in the same manner as described earlier. ( 9 ) LEARNED Additional Advocate general, Mr. Ramesh Ranganathan appearing for the Corporation, placed before the court copies of two resolutions of the Vijayawada Muncipal Corporation dated 6-7-1984 and 11-12-1984. The resolution dated 6-7-1984 is the resolution referable to trie first part of Section 198 of the Act. Under the said resolution the corporation indicated that it proposed to levy tax on lands and buildings at the rates indicated in the said resolution. The resolution provided for slab rates of taxes varying from 17% -30% depending upon the annual rental value of the property. On receipt of the objections and on consideration of the same, ultimately the corporation passed another resolution dated 11-12-1984 approving the proposals made in the earlier resolution. Only one modification is made i. e. , insofar as the non-residential premises are concerned, the slab system indicated in the earlier resolution is not adopted and the uniform tax of 30%, irrespective of rental value of the property, is levied. Only one modification is made i. e. , insofar as the non-residential premises are concerned, the slab system indicated in the earlier resolution is not adopted and the uniform tax of 30%, irrespective of rental value of the property, is levied. The property in question is admittedly a non-residential property. Therefore, the rate of tax applicable to the property in question is 30%. ( 10 ) THEN, the only question is whether such tax could be recovered with effect from 1-4-1984 as indicated in the notice dated 29-3-1985, referred to earlier. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ravindranatha Reddy, submitted that under the scheme of the corporation Act, the taxes are collected in advance. Section 264 of li e Act provides for such advance collection of the tax. Sec. 264 reads as follows:"property Tax how payable: Each of the property taxes shall be payable in advance in half-yearly or quarterly installments as the Corporation may decide. (2) In case of- (a) half-yearly installment, the taxes shall be payable in advance on each first day of april and October. (b) quarterly installments, the taxes shall be payable on each first day of April and July and each first day of October and january". Therefore, for the year 1984-85, the taxes were already levied and collected. If the respondent-Corporation wishes to collect the taxes at the revised rates with effect from 1-4-1984, it would not only amount to collection of the tax twice over for the same period, which is illegal and also has the effect of collecting the tax with retrospective effect. As on 1-4-1984 there was no final decision by the Corporation as contemplated under Section 198 of the Act to collect the taxes at the revised rates. ( 12 ) ON the other hand the learned additional Advocate General argued that having regard to the language of Sec. 198 of the Act, the relevant portion of which reads. "such resolution shall specify the rate at which, the date from which and the period of levy if any, for which, such tax shall be levied". It is permissible for the respondent corporation to collect the taxes contemplated under Section 197 with effect from such date as the Corporation may resolve to collect. "such resolution shall specify the rate at which, the date from which and the period of levy if any, for which, such tax shall be levied". It is permissible for the respondent corporation to collect the taxes contemplated under Section 197 with effect from such date as the Corporation may resolve to collect. In the alternative the learned Additional Advocate General argued that at least from the date of the first resolution i. e. , 6-7-1984, when the corporation proposed to revise the tax, the corporation is entitled to legally collect such taxes. ( 13 ) I am not able to agree with the submissions made by the learned additional Advocate General, in this regard, for the reason that it is a well settled principle of the Constitutional Government which found expression in Article 265 of the constitution of India that no tax shall be levied or collected without the authority of law. The authority of law to collect the tax comes into existence only on the passage of the second resolution contemplated in the later part of Section 198 of the Act, While passing such resolution, it is not permissible for the Corporation to retrospectively confer such authority for collecting the taxes. It is only the Sovereign Legislature which can make laws with retrospective effect, but not a subordinate legislative body like municipal Corporation, unless such retrospective collection is dearly authorized by express language of the statute which confers the power of taxation on a body like municipal Corporation, it cannot levy and collect the tax with retrospective effect. ( 14 ) THOUGH from a plain reading of the section 198 of the Act, (extracted above), it appears that the Corporation has the liberty to fix any date it chose, with effect from which the Corporation can collect the taxes, the larger constitutional limitations do fetter the discretion of the Corporation in this regard. It is only from the date when the second resolution dated 11-12-1984 purported to have been under Section 198 of the Act is passed, the Corporation acquires the authority to collect the taxes. It is only from the date when the second resolution dated 11-12-1984 purported to have been under Section 198 of the Act is passed, the Corporation acquires the authority to collect the taxes. ( 15 ) APART from that, accepting the submission of the learned Additional advocate General in this context would also have the effect of making citizen or the assessee to pay tax twice over for the same period in which case it would certainly exceed the limitation prescribed under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 199, which prescribes the upper limit of 30% as the rate of tax that could be collected on the rateable value of the building. ( 16 ) ADMITTEDLY, in this case, the premises in question is a non-residential premises and it is, admittedly, let out to the A. P. Civil supplies Corporation on a monthly rental of Rs. 24,996. 40. After giving all the deductions, as provided for under Sec. 212 of the Act, the rateable value was determined at Rs. 2,16,000. 00 on which the appellant is liable to pay 30% as tax. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances, the appeal is allowed only to the limited extent that the respondent-Corporation is entitled to recover the tax from the appellant on the abovementioned rateable value of rs. 2,16,000. 00. at the rate of 30% with effect from the date of the Gazette notification of the resolution dt. 11-12-1984. No costs.