JUDGMENT The CMSA is filed against the judgment dated 19.02.2001 passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in T.A.No.44 of 1997 partly allowing the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel representing the appellant. None appears for the respondent. The brief facts of the case under appeal are as follows. The appellant constructed a small building in M.V.P. Colony and the respondent-Municipal Corporation have issued notice dated 28.03.1992 on the appellant assessing half yearly property tax at Rs.7,492-84 ps with effect from 01.10.1991. The appellant filed a revision petition dated 07.04.1992 before the Commissioner contending that the tax levied is very high and it may be reduced. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, sent an endorsement dated 05.01.1994 stating that the revision petition was disposed of on 07.12.1993 by reducing the annual rental value to Rs.46,800/- and determining the half yearly property tax at Rs.6,938-20 ps with effect from 01.10.1991. Thereafter, the appellant filed T.A.No.44 of 1997, which was partly allowed by the appellate authority-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, reducing half yearly tax from Rs.6,938.20 ps to Rs.6,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant preferred the present CMSA. The contention before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, by the appellant herein was that without issuing any notice to them and without following the procedure prescribed under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 {“the Act” for brevity}, tax was levied by the Commissioner and the same has to be set aside in T.A.No.44 of 1997. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge accepted the contention urged by the appellant that absolutely the procedure prescribed under the Act was not followed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, but the learned appellate authority also disposed of the appeal reducing the tax from 6938-20 as to Rs.6,000/-, without there being any material before him and without following any criteria and the same was done in the similar fashion as the revision petition was disposed of by the learned Commissioner. Since the orders passed by both the authorities were not based on any materials required for assessing the property tax and also in utter ignorance of the procedure prescribed under the Act, they are liable to be set aside in this appeal. Since the orders passed by both the authorities were not based on any materials required for assessing the property tax and also in utter ignorance of the procedure prescribed under the Act, they are liable to be set aside in this appeal. Since no notice was issued to the appellant, no materials were considered for fixing the property tax and the procedure prescribed under the Act being not valid, it would raise substantial question of law for consideration in the second Appeal and this Court will interfere with the finding of the appellate Court/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, as the said judgment is illegal. In the result, the judgment passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in T.A.No.44 of 1997 partly allowing the appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, with a direction to make a fresh enquiry into the matter by affording an opportunity to the appellant to participate in the proceedings and adduce evidence and to pass a speaking order by following the procedure prescribed under the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.