K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) ). THE petitions are filed for quashing of the notice of demand issued by the Chief Officer, Town Municipality, Mulki and to set aside the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karkala in Cri. Misc. P. No. 206 of 1992 and the order passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge in Cri. R. P. Nos. 193 to 195 of 2000 respectively. All these three cases pertain to the same petitioner but to different properties situate within the area of the Town Municipality, Mulki which is now said to be designated as Mulki Town Panchayat under the provisions of the Karnataka municipalities Act, as could be seen in the description of the cause title of the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mangalore ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he undertook construction of the buildings in Mulki which have been assigned with property Nos. 29-A to 29-C for one building and for another building 29-D and for the third building 29-E. The buildings are said to be non-residential premises basically shopping complex. One of the premises was said to have been let out to syndicate Bank which had advanced loan for the construction. The rest of the premises was said to be vacant and unoccupied. There was a notification under Section 101 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act for the revision of the building tax and an assessor was appointed. The buildings in question were subjected to assessment by the assessor. Pursuant to the notice of proposed assessment rates, the petitioner is said to have filed objections to the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore who is the jurisdictional authority. After considering the objection, reduced the tax liability marginally. Pursuant to which the impugned demand notices were issued by the Municipality for the recovery of a total sum of rupees three lakhs and odd for the years 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1992. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the judicial Magistrate First Class, Karkala. After considering the objection, reduced the tax liability marginally. Pursuant to which the impugned demand notices were issued by the Municipality for the recovery of a total sum of rupees three lakhs and odd for the years 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1992. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the judicial Magistrate First Class, Karkala. The appeal came to be dismissed on the ground that the deposit of admitted tax is not accompanied along with the appeal and on fact it was found that an opportunity was given as required under Section 106 of the Municipalities Act and also found that the appeal filed before the Judicial Magistrate First class could not have been entertained as it was not accompanied by the requisite deposit of the admitted tax liability. Being aggrieved by the orders, the present petitions are filed ( 3 ) AFTER going through the impugned orders of the Trial Courts, I find that both the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Sessions Judge have failed to appreciate the key requisites involved in the case. The order of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge assume that the admission on the part of the petitioner that he had filed objections before the assistant Commissioner and it was a sufficient opportunity in the eye of law. Therefore, rejected the contention that no opportunity was given. ( 4 ) THE relevant provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 106 and Section 150 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 are extracted here-under for convenient reference:"106 (4) The revising authority shall, after allowing the applicant an opportunity of being heard in person or by agent (a) investigate and dispose of the objections; (b) cause the result thereof to be noted in the book kept under sub-section (3); and (c) cause any amendment necessary in accordance with such result to be made in the assessment list". "150. Appeal to Magistrate. (1) Appeals against any claim included in a notice of demand served under sub-section (3) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of Section 148 may be made to (the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area concerned ). "150. Appeal to Magistrate. (1) Appeals against any claim included in a notice of demand served under sub-section (3) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of Section 148 may be made to (the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area concerned ). But no such appeal shall be heard and determined unless, (a) the appeal is brought within one month next after service of the notice complained of; and (b) an application in writing, stating the grounds on which the claim is disputed, has been made as follows, that is to say (i) in the case of a tax on buildings or lands, to the assessor or the Chief Officer or the Municipal Commissioner, as the case may be, within the time fixed in the notice given under Section 106 or 107 of the assessment, or alteration thereof, according to which the Notice is prepared; (ii) in the case of any other claim for which a notice of demand served has been presented under sub-section (3) of Section 142, to the Municipal Council within fifteen days next after the service of such notice; and (c) the amount (admitted by) the appellant has been deposited by him in the municipal office. (2) The decision of the Magistrate upon any appeal, shall at the instance of either party, be subject to revision by the Court to which appeals from his decisions ordinarily lie. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) the decision of a magistrate on any appeal or revision under this section shall be final and shall be implemented by the Municipal Council. (4) Save as provided in this Act, no entry in the assessment list made under the provisions of this Act and no such claim by any person under this chapter shall be called in question before any court or other authority". ( 5 ) SECTION 106 provides for assessment and revision of taxes and buildings. The Municipal Commissioner of the Municipality or any officer of the Government not below the rank of the Assistant Commissioner specially appointed by the Government in that behalf or the assistant Commissioner of the Revenue Division concerned are named as revising authorities. The person who object the assessment shall file objections to the valuation and assessment made by the assessors. The Municipal Commissioner of the Municipality or any officer of the Government not below the rank of the Assistant Commissioner specially appointed by the Government in that behalf or the assistant Commissioner of the Revenue Division concerned are named as revising authorities. The person who object the assessment shall file objections to the valuation and assessment made by the assessors. The objections so received have to be entered in the register meant for the purpose and the revising authority has to dispose of the objections after hearing the person concerned or his agent. In this context if the provisions of sub-section (4) are carefully read, the revising authority shall give an opportunity of submitting objections in writing and shall also give a personal hearing. Mere filing of written objections before the revising authority and disposal of the objections by the authority without personal hearing does not amount to the compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 106 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Personal hearing of the assessee is a mandatory requirement. In this case, evidently no personal hearing has been done and the revising authority has only disposed off the objections by the impugned order. Accordingly, I find that the opportunity as required under sub-section (4) has not been provided. ( 6 ) THE objection that the appeal memo was not accompanied by the deposit of admitted tax amount also does not appear to have any application to the facts of the case. From the material it indicates that it was a new construction and portion of the building was yet to be completed. There was no assessment of tax earlier to the orders passed in the revision proceedings for assessment of tax and there are no instances of payment of any admitted tax on earlier occasions prior to the proceedings. In that view when the building is for the first time subjected to assessment and there is no amount which could be ascertained as an admitted tax, the question of the deposit of admitted tax does not arise when the initial and maiden assessment of tax is under challenge and the provisions of sub-section (1), clause (c) of Section 150 of the Act may not have relevant application to a situation on hand. ( 7 ) IN that view of the matter, the demand notice issued for recovery of the tax and the impugned orders of the Courts below is set aside. However, the Mulki Town Municipality is given liberty to reassess the tax in accordance with law for the periods in question. --- *** --- .