Judgment :- Heard Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.K.R.Tamizhmani, learned counsel for the third respondent. The second respondent has filed counter. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent in Taxation Appeal No.128/99 dated 17.06.1999, in which the Tribunal has confirmed the property tax assessment made by the second respondent Corporation in respect of the property at Door No.24, McDonald Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent has levied property tax at Rs.1,764/- up to 010. 1998 and the said amount has been remitted and there are no arrears. There was a proposal by the second respondent Corporation to increase the property tax of the building by two fold, namely, by increasing it to Rs.3528/- in respect of the building of the petitioner with effect from 010. 1998. It was against the said order of assessment made by the second respondent Corporation, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the first respondent. 4. The contention of the petitioner before the first respondent Tribunal has been that while arriving at Annual Rental Value, the second respondent ought not to have placed reliance on the guidelines passed by the resolution of the second respondent Corporation and it should have adopted the procedure as enshrined in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The said contention of the petitioner did not find favour with the first respondent Tribunal which has held that the guideline value shall be the guiding factor for the purpose of ascertaining the Annual Rental Value of the property. The impugned order of the first respondent Appellate Tribunal has been challenged on the grounds that the procedure under the Rent Control Act should be followed for the purpose of arriving at the Annual Rental Value, that the first respondent ought to have taken into consideration various Government Orders regarding enhancement of property tax which should not be more than 20% and that by applying the guideline value, which creates onerous responsibility on the owners of the property like that of the petitioner, when the taxation of Annual Rent at Rs.32,392/- which is arbitrary and illegal, apart from stating that 50% increase in respect of the nature of consideration is not permissible and enhancing by 200% in respect of the residential building and basic amenities is also unsustainable. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent Corporation, it is stated that the assessment of the Annual Rental Value was fixed based on the guideline value and as it is provided under the Act. The petitioner having not chosen to challenge the provisions of the Act which enables the Corporation to fix the Annual Rental Value based on the guideline value cannot now oppose the method followed by the second respondent Corporation. In other words, the case of the second respondent is that the Annual Rental Value fixed by the Corporation is fixed based on the statutory provisions and it shall always prevail relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1995 (2) MLJ 43 . 5(a). It is also the case of the second respondent Corporation that in respect of commercial activities, there is no Government Order permitting increase only at 20%. According to the second respondent, in such an event 100% increase is permissible and it was based on the said method, giving more advantageous position to the petitioner, assessment has been made. 6. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the second respondent Corporation would also submit that even assuming that the finding of the Tax Appellate Committee is not as per law, there is a statutory appeal provided against the said order to the District Court, as per the City Municipal Corporation Act and the petitioner having not resorted to the appellate remedy, cannot be permitted to find fault with the order of the Taxation Committee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the face of the order which is impugned in these proceedings, it is seen that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion by approving the method of calculation effected by the second respondent Corporation which in turn was based on the resolution passed by the Corporation as per the provisions of the Act. The Act enables the Corporation to decide about the Annual Rental Value based on the guideline values in respect of the properties and the nature of construction and so on. When the statute provides the second respondent Corporation to assess the Annual Rental Value in accordance with the guideline value of the properties, it is not for this Court to direct the second respondent to follow the principles of the Rent Control Act for fixation of Annual Rental Value. 8. When the statute provides the second respondent Corporation to assess the Annual Rental Value in accordance with the guideline value of the properties, it is not for this Court to direct the second respondent to follow the principles of the Rent Control Act for fixation of Annual Rental Value. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Corporation has correctly pointed out that the petitioner has alternative remedy by filing an appeal and the present writ petition filed against the order of the Taxation Appellate Tribunal is liable to be rejected on that ground also. Therefore, looking at any angle, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.