Judgment :- The petitioner is a Madura College running three Educational Institutions in Madurai. The buildings in Madurai City were originally governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. In the year 1971, Madurai Municipal has been upgraded into Madurai City Municipal Corporation and as per the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, as it existed then, there is no provision for granting exemption to the buildings owned by the Educational Institution. In the year 1989, the respondent Corporation issued demand notices demanding property tax from the year 1971 and that was challenged by the petitioner in O.S.Nos.2253 to 2271 of 1989 and O.S.Nos.2276 to 2289 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai and in those suits, it was held that the respondent has not assessed the property tax as per the provisions of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act and, therefore, the demand notices issued by the respondent were not legal and injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from collecting the property tax as per the demand notices. The Principal District Munsif has also held that the respondent can collect the property tax after properly assessing the property tax as per the provisions of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act. That judgment was rendered on 111. 1991 and it has become final. Thereafter, no steps were taken by the respondent for assessing the property tax in accordance with the provisions of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act. Meanwhile, Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 was amended by Act 42 of 1994, by which Section 125(c) was amended and exemption was given to buildings used for educational purpose including hostels attached thereto and houses used for charitable purpose of sheltering the destitute or animals and on that basis, exemption was granted to the Educational Institutions and, therefore, the petitioner college is not liable to pay the property tax. Nevertheless, the respondent is issuing notices to the petitioner requesting the petitioner to pay property tax arrears from the year 1971-1972 to 1993-1994 followed by various demand notices directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of property tax from 1971-1972 to 1993-1994. In that context, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from demanding property tax for the period as stated above. 2. Mr. In that context, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from demanding property tax for the period as stated above. 2. Mr. M. Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 483 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, there is a limitation for recovery of property tax beyond the beyond the period of six years and hence, the respondent is not entitled to demand property tax from 1971-1972 to 1993-1994. He further contended that after the amendment Act 42 of 1994, the petitioners buildings were exempted from the payment of property tax and on that ground also, they are not liable to pay the property tax and hence, the demand notices issued by the respondent are illegal and, therefore, they must be restrained from proceeding further with the demand or collection of the property tax for the period aforementioned. 3. Per contra, Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the Amendment Act 42 of 1994, the exemption was granted for the first time in the year 1994 and earlier to that, there was no exemption and hence, the petitioner is liable to pay the property tax for the period as stated above. He further submitted that even as per the decree passed in the aforesaid suits, it was held that the respondent is entitled to collect the property tax by properly assessing the property tax as per the provisions of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act and hence, the demand of property tax made by the Corporation is only as per the provisions of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act and unless the petitioner challenges those assessments, they are not entitled to the relief of Mandamus as prayed for. 4. Heard both parties. 5. It is seen from Section 483 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, no distraint shall be made, no suit shall be instituted and no prosecution shall be commenced in respect of any sum due to the Corporation under this Act after the expiration of a period of six years from the last day of the period in respect of which such sum is claimed or in case the same is not claimed in respect of any specific period, from the last day of the year in which the claim arose. Therefore, a reading of this Section makes it clear that beyond the period of six years, the Corporation has no authority to demand the payment of property tax from the owners of the property. 6. As rightly contended by Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent that the exemption was granted to buildings owned by Educational Institution only by Act 42 of 1994. But it came into effect from 18th October, 1990. Therefore, the petitioner can claim exemption only from 1990 and for the period earlier to 1990, they are not entitled to claim exemption as per the provisions of Act 42 of 1994. Nevertheless, the Corporation has to assess the property tax in accordance with the provisions of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act and make the demand within the period stated in Section 483 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971. 7. In this case, admittedly, the notice was issued only in the year 2002, though in the suits, it was held that the Corporation is entitled to levy property tax following the provisions of the Act. As stated supra, the suit was decreed on 111. 1991 and after the lapse of 11 years only, the demand was made in the year 2002. Therefore, as per Section 483 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, the Corporation is not entitled to demand the property tax for a period exceeding six years. 8. Mr. M. Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment reported in 2000 (1) CTC 518 in the matter of K.R.Santharam v. The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, wherein the Honble Justice P.Sathasivam, J, (as he then was) has held that the Corporation is not entitled to assess property tax and enhance the same for more than three years preceding the assessment year and no recovery after lapse of six years. Therefore, as laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the respondent is not entitled to demand or collect the property tax for a period exceeding six years. 9. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 483 was amended by Act 37 of 2008, by which the six years period is substituted by 12 years and, therefore, by reason of the said Act 37 of 2008, the Corporation is entitled to collect the tax for a period of 12 years. 10. 9. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 483 was amended by Act 37 of 2008, by which the six years period is substituted by 12 years and, therefore, by reason of the said Act 37 of 2008, the Corporation is entitled to collect the tax for a period of 12 years. 10. Itis stated that the Act shall come into force by way of notification and it is settled law that in the matter of limitation, it has got prospective effect and Limitation Act cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the 12 years period has to be reckoned only from the date of commencement of the Act. Even assuming that the Corporation is entitled to recover the arrears of tax for a period of 12 years, even then in this case, the Corporation is not entitled to recover the same, as the period relates to between 1971-1972 and 1993-1994, which is beyond the period of limitation as per the amended Act 37 of 2008. Therefore, in any event, the Corporation is not entitled to demand the property tax for the period from 1971-1972 to 1993-1994 and the claim of the Corporation is barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 483 of Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971. Hence, the petitioner College are justified in their prayer and the Corporation cannot demand the property tax for the period from 1971-1972 to 1993-1994. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.