V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings in STC. No. 56 of 2001 on the file of the special Judicial II Class Magistrate, Nuzvid. ( 2 ) ON the complaint of the Commissioner, nuzvid Municipality for non-payment of the revised enhanced tax for the year 2000-20001 by the petitioner, the criminal case has been filed against the petitioner for his prosecution under Sections 364,366 and rule 37 (1) of Schedule II of A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 as amended. ( 3 ) THE case of the 2nd respondent- municipality is that the existing tax liable to be paid by the petitioner in respect of the premises occupied by him is Rs. 8,891/- per half year; and the petitioner paid the tax at the same rate upto 31-3-2000; and a special notice was issued for revising the tax from rs. 8,891 /- to Rs. 19,696/- per half year; and the said notice was served on the petitioner on 8-8-2000; and the petitioner submitted a revision petition on 7-9-2000; and pursuant to the said revision petition, the Municipality issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to appear for hearing of the revision petition on 28-9-2000 at 4. 00 PM in the Municipal Office; and the Manager of the petitioner-Industry attended for hearing on 28-9-2000 and requested not to revise the existing tax. But, the Commissioner revised the tax as proposed in the show-cause notice; and as per the enhancement, the petitioner is liable to pay the property tax at Rs. 19,696/- per half year and the same has become final and no appeal has been filed. Only after expiry of the limitation, a memorandum of appeal has been filed, which is not maintainable; and the enhanced revised tax has become final; and therefore, the Municipality rightly launched the prosecution. 19,696/- per half year and the same has become final and no appeal has been filed. Only after expiry of the limitation, a memorandum of appeal has been filed, which is not maintainable; and the enhanced revised tax has become final; and therefore, the Municipality rightly launched the prosecution. ( 4 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order revising the enhanced tax has not been communicated to the petitioner, and therefore, without there being any order revising the tax in the hands of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot file any appeal, and thus, the respondents have deprived the petitioner the right to avail the remedy available under the Rules by filing an appeal to question the validity and legality of the revision of tax, and therefore, it cannot be said that he has willfully failed to pay the tax. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed by the Municipality in the counter-affidavit, but stated that the manager of the petitioner-Industry attended for hearing and requested to retain the existing tax only, but the Commissioner revised the tax enhancing it from Rs. 8,891/- to Rs. 19,696/ -. But, the petitioner himself has not filed any appeal as contemplated under Rule 22 of the Taxation and Finance rules; and after revision of tax, demand notice was also issued. It is further stated that without filing an appeal, the petitioner filed a memorandum of written arguments on 30-12-2000, which was received on 2-1-2001, which is not maintainable, as no appeal has been filed against the order dated 28-9-2000 revising the tax. It is an admitted fact that the order dated 28-9-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Nuzvid municipality has not been communicated to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner was not able to question the said order by filing an appeal and his right of remedy by filing an appeal has been deprived with. The action of the respondents in not serving the revised order is against the principles of natural justice, unreasonable and arbitrary; and without giving the opportunity of filing an appeal to the petitioner by serving the proceedings revising the existing tax, the criminal prosecution cannot be launched. The prosecution launched against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal petition is allowed; and the proceedings in STC. The prosecution launched against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal petition is allowed; and the proceedings in STC. No. 56 of 2001 are quashed. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner has not paid the existing tax, it is open the Municipality to launch prosecution for non-payment of the pre- revised tax. As far as prosecution for non- payment of the revised tax is concerned, it is open for the Municipality to serve on the petitioner the order, if any, passed by it revising the tax and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.