JUDGMENT : HARSHA DEVANI, J. 1. After hearing the parties, in light of the view that the Court is inclined to adopt, the matter has been heard finally today. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for respective respondents are directed to waive service of rule. 2. The petitioner, a unit of Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in the manufacture of Viscose Filament Rayon Yarn and other allied chemicals. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs: “7. The petitioners pray: (A) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to: (i) declare section 99-A of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 to the extent it delegates powers to the State Government to prescribe factors by Rules for determining property tax by Municipalities. (ii) declare Gujarat Municipalities Property Tax Rules, 2007 and the notification dated 01.04.2006 framed by the Government of Gujarat as ultra vires, unreasonable, arbitrary, suffering from excessive delegation and be pleased to declare the same null and void. (B) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) declaring that the assessment and levy of property tax on the basis of resolution No. 411 dated 29.04.2008 read with resolution No. 35 dated 31.07.2008 passed by the Veraval- Patan Joint Municipality is illegal, without following procedure under the Act, without any authority and be pleased to quash and set aside the aforesaid resolutions and all other resolutions/orders/decision passed/taken by Veraval-Patan Joint Municipality and be pleased to declare that no such property tax can be levied on the basis of implementation of any of the said resolutions/orders/decisions. (ii) commanding the respondents not to levy property tax on the petitioner as per the rates revised vide resolution no. 411 dated 29.04.2008 read with resolution no. 35 dated 31.07.2008. (iii) declaring that the respondent no. 3 Veraval-Patan Joint Municipality has no authority or competence to levy property tax on the basis of the revised rates as decided vide resolution no. 411 dated 29.04.2008 read with resolution no. 35 dated 31.07.2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2008. 4. 411 dated 29.04.2008 read with resolution no. 35 dated 31.07.2008. (iii) declaring that the respondent no. 3 Veraval-Patan Joint Municipality has no authority or competence to levy property tax on the basis of the revised rates as decided vide resolution no. 411 dated 29.04.2008 read with resolution no. 35 dated 31.07.2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2008. 4. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that section 99 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (the Act) as it stood prior to its amendment vide the Gujarat Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2007, authorised a municipality to levy tax on buildings and lands based on the annual letting value or the capital value or a percentage of capital value of the buildings or lands or both. Vide the Gujarat Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2007 in the principal Act, in section 99, in sub-section (1), in clause (i) for the words annual letting value or the capital value or a percentage of capital value the words carpet area came to be substituted. By the amending Act, section 99A came to be inserted in the Act which permitted the municipality to levy property tax at such rate per square metre of the carpet area of buildings and of area of lands as the Municipality may determine having regard to the factors as the State Government may prescribe by rules. 5. The Government of Gujarat, in its Urban Development and Urban Housing Department vide resolution dated 11th June, 2007 framed rules called the Gujarat Municipalities Property Tax Rules, 2007 (the Taxation Rules) which provided factors namely, location factor, age factor, occupancy factor and user factor and prescribed formula based on the aforesaid factors for determining property tax. Vide Notification dated 01st April, 2008 issued by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, minimum or maximum rate of tax came to be fixed. Pursuant to the said Notification, the Veraval Municipality passed a resolution in its meeting convened on 29th April, 2008 fixing rates of tax for residential and non-residential properties. Vide e-mail dated 09th May, 2008, the Director of Municipalities, Gandhinagar asked the Municipality to fix one rate of tax instead of three different rates, pursuant to which the Municipality passed a further resolution on 31st July, 2008 fixing one rate of tax which was Rs. 5/- per square metre for residential properties and Rs. 8/- per square metre for properties other than residential. 5/- per square metre for residential properties and Rs. 8/- per square metre for properties other than residential. The Municipality also fixed location factor by the said resolution. 6. On 12th August, 2008, the Municipality issued public notice mentioning that the municipality had prepared assessment book on the basis of revised rate of tax and that any citizen objecting to the said assessment must submit his objections in writing with evidence within 30 days from the date of publication of the said notice. In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted its objections in writing dated 10th September, 2008 to the Chief Officer of the Municipality. Vide resolution No. 43 dated 13th October, 2008, the Veraval Municipality rejected the written objections. 7. In the meanwhile, the Veraval Municipality issued bills dated 13th January, 2009 with respect to the factory building, the land and residential quarters of the employees of the petitioner for the year 2008-09. The outstanding amount shown in the bills for the land and the factory building for the previous years pertain to levy of property tax by the Veraval Municipality on the petitioner pursuant to the amendment of rule 4(1)(b) and rule 6(A)(2)(a)(b) effected as per resolution dated 25th February, 2004. Against the levy of tax on the basis of the said amendment, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No. 357 of 2006. Vide order dated 19th July, 2006, rule was issued in the matter and interim relief was granted in terms of paragraph 9(C) thereof, thereby staying the operation, execution and implementation of the assessment bill dated 20th October, 2004 for the year 2005-06 and demand notice dated 17th December, 2005 raised by the Municipality. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged levy of property tax by the respondent No. 3-Veraval Municipality at the revised rate with effect from 01st April, 2008. 8. Mr. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged levy of property tax by the respondent No. 3-Veraval Municipality at the revised rate with effect from 01st April, 2008. 8. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that under the scheme of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 relating to tax on property, the municipality is empowered to impose a tax on buildings and/or lands situated within the municipal borough on the basis of the carpet area of the buildings and/or lands under section 99(1)(i) of the Act, which is subject to general or special orders made by the State Government in this behalf and to the provisions of section 101 and 102 of the Act. Such tax is to be levied annually on the buildings/lands at such rate per square metre of the carpet area of the buildings and of the area of lands as the Municipality may determine having regard to the factors prescribed by the State Government under the Rules, as provided in section 99A of the Act. Before imposing the tax, the Municipality has to follow the preliminary procedure of passing a resolution for selecting the tax, approving rules, inviting objections from the inhabitants, considering the objections and forwarding the same along with the opinion thereon, to the State Government, as provided in section 101 of the Act. The State Government is entitled to refuse to sanction the rules so submitted or return them to the municipality or sanction them with or without modification under section 102 of the Act. The sanctioned rules come into effect on the date specified in the notice published under section 103 of the Act. 9. Inviting attention to the provisions of section 104 of the Act, it was submitted that the said section is not a part of the Scheme of Taxation referred to hereinabove. This section enables the State Government to empower any Municipality to levy any tax or to increase or reduce the amount or rate of tax levied, within such maximum and minimum limits as may be specified in the notification. This section enables the State Government to empower any Municipality to levy any tax or to increase or reduce the amount or rate of tax levied, within such maximum and minimum limits as may be specified in the notification. The Municipality so empowered is, notwithstanding any earlier resolution or Rules under section 101 of the Act, entitled to pass a resolution at a general meeting to levy such tax or increase or reduce the amount or rate of tax, which comes into effect upon publication of the resolution on the date specified therein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, section 104 operates in a different field and in a different situation and is not intended to be a substitute for the Scheme regarding levy of taxes under section 99 to section 103 of the Act. Section 104 would only operate in a situation where the Municipality has not selected the tax specified in section 99 of the Act for the purpose of levy as required under section 101 of the Act and, therefore, is not empowered to levy the same, but that it was necessary to impose the tax notwithstanding such non-selection, or that the rate/amount of tax required a modification after imposition, on account of unforeseen circumstances or exigency. The State Government is then entitled to empower such municipality to levy the tax or change the rate/amount of tax notwithstanding any resolution under section 101 of the Act. Section 104 of the Act does not prescribe an alternative procedure generally available to all municipalities. It was submitted that such interpretation would render the section invalid on the ground of excessive delegation. 10. As regards the procedure followed by the State Government and the municipality for levy of tax in the present case, it was submitted that the State Government framed rules purportedly under section 99 A(1) of the Act on 11th June, 2007. The said Rules prescribe the factors to be taken into account at the time of assessment of the property tax and prescribe the multiplier in respect of the said factors, which was to be applied on the amount/rate of tax selected by the municipality to arrive at the amount of tax due from the assessee. The said Rules prescribe the factors to be taken into account at the time of assessment of the property tax and prescribe the multiplier in respect of the said factors, which was to be applied on the amount/rate of tax selected by the municipality to arrive at the amount of tax due from the assessee. Rule 5(3) of the said Rules dispensed with the requirement of sanction of the State Government under section 102 of the Act if the rate of tax was within the limits prescribed under the notification issued by the State Government under section 104 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, these Rules are clearly invalid inter alia for the following reasons: (i) Rule 5(3) exempting the municipality from seeking sanction under section 102 is beyond the rule making power conferred on the State Government under Section 99A(1) of the Act. (ii) The said rule extending the operation of a notification issued under section 104 of the Act into the Scheme of levy of tax under sections 99 to 103 of the Act is contrary to the legislative prescription and ambit of the respective provisions. (iii) In any case, the amount/rate prescribed under the notification under section 104 of the Act cannot be adopted so as to obviate the requirement of sanction (as permitted under the Rules) and then the multipliers be given effect to resulting in wholly different amount/rate of tax, which in a given situation could exceed the maximum amount/rate prescribed under the notification itself. In fact, in the instant case, the Municipality claims to have adopted the minimum rate of Rs. 8/- per square metre for the purpose of levy of property tax and claims to be therefore exempt from seeking sanction of the State Government relying on rule 5(3) of the Rules, while in fact, after applying the multipliers, the rate applied by the municipality is Rs. 18/- per square metre, which is more than the maximum prescribed in the notification. (iv) The State Government has issued a notification dated 01st April, 2008, which is purportedly under section 99A and section 104 of the Act fixing the minimum and maximum rate per square metre of property tax leviable by the municipality. 18/- per square metre, which is more than the maximum prescribed in the notification. (iv) The State Government has issued a notification dated 01st April, 2008, which is purportedly under section 99A and section 104 of the Act fixing the minimum and maximum rate per square metre of property tax leviable by the municipality. The said notification is invalid, inter-alia, for the following reasons: (a) Section 99A of the Act does not empower the State Government to issue such a notification at all and it is the municipality which is entrusted with the power of selecting the tax, determining the amount and rate thereof and its levy and collection. (b) Section 104 of the Act enables the State Government to empower a particular municipality to levy tax or amend the rate to meet with an exigency and does not empower the State Government to issue a general notification applicable for all municipalities, which read in conjunction with the Rules, bypasses the statutory requirements under section 99 to 103 of the Act. (c) In any case, the municipality can levy the tax or change the rate/amount as prescribed in the notification, but the same cannot be adopted for the purpose of the procedure to be followed under section 99 to 103 of the Act. (d) In any case, after the insertion of Article 243-X in the Constitution of India, the limits within which the municipality can levy taxes has to be stipulated by the Legislature of a State by law and the notification being a piece of delegated legislation is violative of the constitutional mandate. 11. Insofar as the challenge to the validity of the demand of property tax is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the demand of property tax from the petitioner by issuance of the impugned bills dated 13th January, 2009 is illegal inasmuch as the municipality has not followed the preliminary procedure of submitting objections to the proposal to levy tax along with its opinion to the State Government under section 101(c) of the Act; sanction of the State Government has not been obtained to the Resolution/Rules as required under section 102 of the Act; the Rules have not been published as required under section 103 of the Act and therefore the tax cannot be levied or collected. It was further submitted that the tax has been levied by the municipality by relying on the Rules framed by the State Government purportedly under section 99A of the Act read with the notification dated 01st April, 2008 under section 104 of the Act, both of which are invalid and illegal and consequently, the demand of tax is vitiated on this ground. 12. Next, it was contended that even if the Rules and the notification are held to be valid, the amount/rate of tax imposed by the municipality is effectively higher than the maximum amount prescribed under the notification and therefore the sanction of the Government would be necessary in any case. Even if the adoption of the rate/amount stated in the notification is held to be valid, no resolution has been passed under section 104(2) of the Act for levying tax at the said rate nor has such resolution been published in the borough as provided in section 104(3) and no tax could, therefore, be levied on the assessees. It was urged that even on facts the municipality has not adopted the correct multiplier under Category 4 of the Rules since it has adopted the multiplier of 3, which is for commercial establishments and not for industrial units like the petitioner. It was further submitted that the objections of the petitioner to the imposition of tax were rejected by the municipality on 13th October, 2008 and even if all issues were held to be against the petitioner, the tax could have been imposed only thereafter, while in fact the Municipality has levied tax with effect from 01st April, 2008 which is illegal. 13. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. K.B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General submitted that prior to the amendment in the Act, property tax was levied on buildings and lands based on the annual letting value or capital value or percentage of capital value of the buildings, or lands or both, as the municipality may impose, which had resulted in different methods of assessment of tax under the erstwhile provisions of section 99 of the Act in different municipalities, leading to increase in litigation, non-transparency in the assessment and low rate of recovery of tax, affecting the revenue of the municipalities. It was under these circumstances that it was felt necessary to introduce single method of assessment of tax on buildings and lands in the municipalities as a result whereof; the State Government introduced the levy of tax on the basis of carpet area of the buildings and area of the lands. Thus, merely because the basis of taxation under the provisions of the Act has been changed by following the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (‘BPMC Act’ ) adopting carpet area as the basis in place of annual letting value or capital value etc. of the buildings or lands, the same cannot per se become illegal. Such a basis is very much there under the provisions of the BPMC Act in respect of municipal corporations. In the circumstances, the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2007 effective from 01st April, 2008 inter-alia amending section 99(1)(i) of the Act as well as inserting section 99A in the Act, are not ultra vires the Constitution. Consequently, the Gujarat Municipalities Property Tax Rules, 2007 framed pursuant to the provisions of section 99(1)(i) and section 99A(1) of the Act are also absolutely legal and proper and so is the position with reference to the notification dated 01st April, 2008 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 104(1) read with section 99A of the Act. 14. Inviting attention to the provisions of section 99 of the Act, it was submitted that the same enlists various taxes, which can be imposed by a municipality, subject to what is mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 99 of the Act. Whereas, section 99A of the Act is a charging section, which is enacted in aid of section 99(1)(i) of the Act for levying tax on buildings and lands referred to as one of the taxes under section 99 of the Act. If one considers the provisions contained in sections 101 to 111 of the Act along with section 99A, it becomes abundantly clear that the State Legislature has laid down detailed procedure and guidance as regards the machinery for fixation of rate of tax per square metre of the carpet area of buildings and of the areas of lands. If one considers the provisions contained in sections 101 to 111 of the Act along with section 99A, it becomes abundantly clear that the State Legislature has laid down detailed procedure and guidance as regards the machinery for fixation of rate of tax per square metre of the carpet area of buildings and of the areas of lands. Merely because such guidelines as regards factors to be taken into account are available under the Property Tax Rules for fixing the rate of tax per square metre of the carpet area, section 99A cannot be considered to be bad in law on the alleged ground that it seeks to confer uncontrolled powers in favour of the State Government to prescribe factors forming basis for the assessment of Property Tax. 15. It was further submitted that the guidelines can be traced from the notification dated 01st April, 2008 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 104 read with section 99A of the Act fixing the minimum and maximum rate of tax for being chosen by the municipality to levy tax on buildings or lands based on carpet area. In this view of the matter, section 99A of the Act cannot be said to be suffering from the vice of excessive delegation, more particularly when by virtue of the provisions of section 104 of the Act read in juxtaposition with the notification dated 01st April, 2008, a municipality is not given any uncontrolled discretion in the matter of fixing the rate of tax, since the limit within which the said discretion is to be exercised, has been clearly demarcated and, therefore, it cannot be said that section 99A of the Act deserves to be quashed and set aside since it allegedly gives no guidelines or directions on the basis of which the rate of tax is required to be fixed. 16. Next it was submitted that section 104 of the Act has no bearing on sections 99 to 103 of the Act and seeks to provide for an alternate procedure. 16. Next it was submitted that section 104 of the Act has no bearing on sections 99 to 103 of the Act and seeks to provide for an alternate procedure. Section 104 of the Act enables the State Government to empower any municipality to levy tax, within such maximum and minimum limits as may be specified in the notification and the municipality so empowered, notwithstanding any resolution or rules under section 101, is entitled to pass a resolution at a general meeting to levy such tax, which comes into effect upon publication of the resolution and the date of its coming into force. 17. It was accordingly submitted that the resolutions passed by the municipality, that is, resolution No. 411 dated 29th April, 2008 read with resolution No. 35 dated 31st July, 2008 pursuant to the provisions of section 104 of the Act, are absolutely legal and proper inasmuch as the municipality has passed the said resolutions in a general meeting, deciding to levy tax at a particular rate, which came to be published inviting the people concerned to lodge their objections, if any, for finally deciding the applicable rate while keeping in mind the minimum and maximum limit fixed by virtue of notification dated 01st April, 2008. Thus, the municipalities in question have followed the provisions of section 101 in spirit even while taking recourse of section 104 of the Act. 18. It was further submitted that rule 5(3) of the Rules exempts a municipality from seeking sanction under section 102 of the Act, since predetermined and pre-sanctioned maximum and minimum limits for the taxation are fixed by the Government under notification issued under section 99A read with section 104 of the Act, within which the municipality is empowered to levy tax. Rule 5(3) of the Rules cannot be said to be beyond the rule making power conferred on the State Government under section 99A(i) of the Act. Even otherwise, the said rule 5(3) cannot be said to be contrary to the legislative prescription and ambit of the respective provisions, as contended on behalf of the petitioner. Rule 5(3) of the Rules cannot be said to be beyond the rule making power conferred on the State Government under section 99A(i) of the Act. Even otherwise, the said rule 5(3) cannot be said to be contrary to the legislative prescription and ambit of the respective provisions, as contended on behalf of the petitioner. It was submitted that in the circumstances, the municipality can levy tax as per the provisions of section 104 of the Act read with a notification issued thereunder, in which case, the provisions contained under sections 101 to 103 of the Act are not applicable, since the provisions contained by section 104 of the Act provide sufficient guidelines and safeguards, which are very much pari materia in nature as compared to those provided under sections 101 to 103 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of treating the notification dated 01st April, 2008 issued in exercise of the powers flowing from section 104(1) read with section 99A of the Act, as invalid. Merely because section 99A of the Act does not speak about the issuance of any notification, it is not permissible for the petitioners in law to contend that no notification can be issued to take care of what is provided under section 99A of the Act. 19. The learned Advocate General submitted that section 104 of the Act is independent of sections 99 to 103 of the Act and hence, there arises no question of compliance of requirements of sections 99 to 103 of the Act while taking recourse to the procedure laid down under section 104 of the Act. Article 243-X of the Constitution of India refers to a law to be made by the State Legislature authorizing a municipality to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, etc. in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits, as may be specified in the law. The aforesaid provisions contained in the Act, including those laid down under section 104 of the Act enabling the State Government to empower any municipality to levy any tax, within such maximum and minimum limits as may be specified in the notification, are very much in consonance with the spirit of Article 243-X of the Constitution of India. 20. The aforesaid provisions contained in the Act, including those laid down under section 104 of the Act enabling the State Government to empower any municipality to levy any tax, within such maximum and minimum limits as may be specified in the notification, are very much in consonance with the spirit of Article 243-X of the Constitution of India. 20. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate General placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of Calcutta vs. Liberty Cinema, AIR 1965 SC 1107 , wherein it has been observed as under:- “(26) No doubt when the power to fix rates of taxes is left to another body, the legislature must provide guidance for such fixation. The question then is, was such guidance provided in the Act? We first wish to observe that the validity of the guidance cannot be tested by a right uniform rule; that must depend on the object of the Act giving power to fix the rate. It is said that the delegation of power to fix rates of taxes authorized for meeting the needs of the delegate to be valid, must provide the maximum rate that can be fixed or lay down rules indicating that maximum. We are unable to see how the specification of the maximum rate supplies any guidance as to how the amount of the tax which no doubt has to be below the maximum, is to be fixed. Provision for such maximum only sets out a limit of the rate to be imposed and a limit is only a limit and not a guidance.” (ii) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gulabchand B. Modi vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad City, (1971) 1 SCC 823 , wherein it has been observed as under:- “16....Thus, although the Act does not prescribe the maximum rate at which the property taxes can be raised, the ultimate control for raising them is with the councilors responsible to the people. It is difficult, therefore, to sustain the plea that the power to levy the property tax is so unbridled as to make it possible for the corporation to levy it in an arbitrary manner or extent.” (iii) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Nagappa vs. Iron Ore Mines CESS Commissioner, (1973) 2 SCC 1 and more particularly on paragraph para 18 thereof wherein it has been held thus: “18....The policy of the Act has been clearly stated; the purposes for which the tax collected should be expended have been enumerated and the purposes are such that it is reasonably possible for the delegate to calculate the amount necessary to meet them. In these circumstances, we think that the necessary guidance for fixing the rate can be found in the amount of expenditure necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Quite apart from these circumstances, the fact that Section 2 has fixed the maximum rate would indicate that the delegate is not given an uncontrolled discretion in the matter of fixing the rate. The area within which the discretion has to be exercised having been clearly demarcated, it cannot be said that a blanket power to fix the rate has been delegated to Government.” (iv) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1979) 1 SCC 137 , wherein it has been held thus: “23. It is too late in the day to contend that the jurisprudence of delegation of legislative power does not sanction parting with the power to fix the rate of taxation, given indication of the legislative policy with sufficient clarity. In the case of a body like a municipality with functions which are limited and the requisite resources also limited, the guideline contained in the expression “for the purposes of the Act” is sufficient, although in the case of the State or Central Government a mere indication that taxation may be raised for the purposes of the State may be giving a carte blanche containing no indicium of policy or purposeful limitation.” (v) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Action Group vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 7 SCC 425 , wherein the while dealing with the challenge to Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu and Country Planning Act, 1971, the Court observed as under:- “41. (A) Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu and Country Planning Act, 1971 is valid. It does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of any essential legislative function. The Preamble, Objects and Reasons and various provisions of the Act give a clear-cut policy and guidelines to the Government for exercising its power. Hence it is neither unbridled nor without any guidelines.” 21. On behalf of the respondent No. 3-Municipality, Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate adopted the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate General. It was further submitted that the Municipality while issuing the bills under challenge has followed the directions, guidelines, orders, etc. issued by the Director of Municipalities and the State Government and more particularly the directions issued by the Director of Municipalities vide communication dated 24th March, 2008 as well as the Circular dated 09th May, 2008. It was submitted that the respondent municipality had issued public notice in the daily newspaper “Sandesh” and invited objections from the public with regard to the proposed assessment and all objections which were received were considered after giving personal hearing to the objectors. The petitioner Company was also given personal hearing regarding its objections and on consideration, the said objections were not found to be reasonable and valid and as such, were not accepted by the Municipality. It was submitted that the Municipality has prepared the bills after giving an opportunity to the Company and that the same are in accordance with the Rules of 2007 and the notification issued under section 99A of the Act. In relation to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the assessment bills were grossly over-rated and prepared without application of mind, it was submitted that the Municipality is prepared to reconsider and revise the bills if there is any factual error of calculation. 22. With a view to properly appreciate the facts of the case and respective contentions, it is necessary to first advert to the relevant statutory provisions. 23. Chapter VIII of the Act makes provision for “Municipal Taxation” and comprises of 6 parts. Part (1) thereof, which is relevant for the present purpose makes provision for “Imposition of taxes” and contains six sections, being sections 99, 99A, 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104. 23. Chapter VIII of the Act makes provision for “Municipal Taxation” and comprises of 6 parts. Part (1) thereof, which is relevant for the present purpose makes provision for “Imposition of taxes” and contains six sections, being sections 99, 99A, 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104. All the aforesaid sections, except section 100 which provides for payment to be made to the municipality in lieu of a tax on buildings by the Government or district panchayat or taluka panchayat concerned, are relevant for the purpose of the present petition. 24. Section 99 which makes provision for “Taxes which may be imposed” insofar as the same is relevant for the present purpose reads thus: “99. Taxes which may be imposed - (1) Subject to any general or special orders which the State Government may make in this behalf and to the provisions of section 101 and 102, a municipality may impose for the purposes of this Act any of the following taxes, namely:- (i) a tax on buildings or lands situate within the municipal borough to be based on the carpet area of the buildings or lands or both. (ii) xxxxx to (xv) xxxxx (2) Nothing in this section shall authorize the imposition of any tax which the State Legislature has no power to impose in the State under the Constitution.” 25. Section 99A of the Act reads thus: “99A. Tax on buildings and lands. (1) For the purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 99, the tax shall, subject to such exceptions, limitations and conditions hereinafter provided, be levied annually on the buildings and lands situate in the municipal borough area at such rate per square metre of the carpet area of buildings and of the area of lands (hereinafter referred to as “rate of tax”) as the municipality may determine having regard to the factors as the State Government may prescribe by rules. (2) For the purpose of levy of tax on buildings or land situate within the municipal borough under sub-section (1): (a) the buildings may be classified into residential buildings and buildings other than the residential buildings. (b) the municipality may determine one rate of tax for residential buildings and the other rate of tax for buildings other than the residential buildings. (b) the municipality may determine one rate of tax for residential buildings and the other rate of tax for buildings other than the residential buildings. Provided that it shall be lawful for the municipality to determine for residential buildings, the carpet areas of which does not exceed forty square metres, such rate of tax as is lower than the rate of tax determined for residential buildings generally; Provided further that the rates of tax as per square metre of carpet area shall be decided by the municipality with the approval of the Director of Municipalities. (3) In lieu of tax leviable under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2), there shall be levied annually on: (a) residential huts. (b) residential tenements in a chawl, each such tenement having carpet area not exceeding twenty-five square metres, such amount of tax as the municipality may determine. Provided that the amount so determined shall not be less than such amount as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. Explanation - For the purpose of levy of tax under this section, where an addition is made to an existing building whereby the carpet area of that building is increased, such addition shall be treated as a separate building and the length of the time of its existence shall be computed from the year in which such addition is made.” 26. Thus, section 99 of the Act inter-alia empowers the municipality to impose a tax on buildings or lands situate within the municipal borough. Such tax is to be based on the carpet area of the buildings or lands or both. The imposition of tax is subject to (i) any general or special orders which the State Government may make in this behalf and (ii) the provisions of section 101 and 102 of the Act. 27. Section 101 of the Act makes provision for the procedure preliminary to imposing tax and reads thus: “101. The imposition of tax is subject to (i) any general or special orders which the State Government may make in this behalf and (ii) the provisions of section 101 and 102 of the Act. 27. Section 101 of the Act makes provision for the procedure preliminary to imposing tax and reads thus: “101. Procedure preliminary to imposing tax - A municipality before imposing a tax shall observe the following preliminary procedure:- (a) It shall, by resolution passed at a general meeting, select for the purpose one or other of the taxes specified in section 99 and approve rules; prepared for the purposes of clause (1) of section 271 prescribing the tax selected, and in such resolution and in such rules specify:- (i) the classes of persons or of property or of both, which the municipality proposes to make liable and any exemptions which it proposes to make. (ii) the amount or rate at which the municipality proposes to assess each such class. (iii) in the case of a tax on buildings or lands or the both, the manner of assessment of such tax to be imposed. (iv) all other matters which the State Government may require to be specified therein. (b) When such resolution has been passed, the municipality shall publish the rules so approved with a notice in the form of Schedule I prefixed thereto. (c) Any inhabitant of the municipal borough objecting to the imposition of the said tax or to the amount or rate proposed or to the classes of persons or property to be made liable thereto or to any exemptions proposed may, within one month from the publication of the said notice, send his objection in writing to the municipality; the municipality shall take all such objections, into consideration, or shall authorize a committee to consider the same and report thereon and unless it decides to abandon the proposed tax, shall submit such objections with his opinion thereon and any modifications proposed in accordance therewith, together with the notice and rules aforesaid to the State Government. 28. Section 102 of the Act makes provision for power to sanction, modify and impose conditions and reads thus: “102. 28. Section 102 of the Act makes provision for power to sanction, modify and impose conditions and reads thus: “102. Power to sanction, modify and impose conditions - The State Government may refuse to sanction the rules submitted under section 101, or may return them to the municipality for further consideration; or if no objection or no objection which is in its opinion sufficient, was made to the proposed tax within the period prescribed under section 101, may sanction the said rules without modification, or subject to such modifications not involving an increase in the amount to be imposed as it deems fit.” 29. On a plain reading of the provisions of section 99A of the Act, it is apparent that the same is more in the nature of an adjunct to section 99 of the Act and does not operate independently. Sub-section (1) of section 99A provides that: (i) for the purpose of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 99 of the Act. (ii) the tax shall be levied annually on the buildings and lands situated in the municipal borough area. (iii) at such rate per square metre of the carpet area of the buildings and the area of the land. (iv) as the municipality may determine. (v) having regard to the factors as the State Government may prescribe. (vi) which shall be subject to such exceptions, limitations and conditions provided thereunder. Sub-section (2) of section 99A of the Act provides for classification of buildings into residential and other than residential buildings and lays down that the municipality may determine one rate of tax for residential buildings and another rate of tax for other than residential buildings. The first proviso thereto provides for a lower rate of tax where the carpet area of a residential building does not exceed forty square metres. The second proviso lays down that the rates of tax per square metre shall be decided by the municipality with the approval of the Director of Municipalities. Sub-section (3) also provides for levy of tax in lieu of tax leviable under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) in case of residential huts and tenements in a chawl. The Explanation to section 99A provides for levy of tax in case of additions made to existing buildings. 30. Sub-section (3) also provides for levy of tax in lieu of tax leviable under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) in case of residential huts and tenements in a chawl. The Explanation to section 99A provides for levy of tax in case of additions made to existing buildings. 30. Thus, while section 99 of the Act inter-alia empowers a municipality to levy tax on buildings and lands based on the carpet area, section 99A of the Act postulates the rate of such tax, which has taken into account the factors prescribed. Section 101 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed prior to imposing a tax under section 99 of the Act and the manner of assessment of such tax to be imposed. Section 102 of the Act makes provision for sanction, modification and imposition of conditions by the State Government to the rules submitted to it under section 101 of the Act. Section 103 of the Act makes provision for publication of the sanctioned rules and also lays down that the tax as prescribed by the rules shall be imposed from a date which shall be specified in such notice and which shall not be less than one month from the date of publication of notice. 31. Thus, sections 99, 99A, 101, 102 and 103 of the Act form a complete Code for the purpose of levy of tax on buildings and lands. 32. Examining the facts of the present case in the background of the aforesaid statutory provisions, vide resolution dated 11th June, 2007 the State Government has framed rules under section 99A of the Act called the Gujarat Municipalities Property Tax Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) prescribing the factors for determination by the municipality of the rate of tax to be levied annually on buildings and lands. Rule 3 of the said Rules lays down that while determining such rates, the maximum and minimum rates as may be prescribed by the State Government under section 104 of the Act shall be kept in mind and in such case it would not be necessary to obtain the prior permission of the Director of Municipalities. Rule 3 of the said Rules lays down that while determining such rates, the maximum and minimum rates as may be prescribed by the State Government under section 104 of the Act shall be kept in mind and in such case it would not be necessary to obtain the prior permission of the Director of Municipalities. Thus, this rule does away with the requirement of deciding the rates of tax per square metre by the municipality with the approval of the Director of Municipalities as envisaged under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 99A of the Act. 33. From the facts emerging from the record of the case, it appears that pursuant to the said Rules the respondent municipality has not imposed any tax on buildings and lands based on the carpet area as envisaged under section 99 of the Act by following the procedure prescribed under sections 101 to 103 of the Act. However, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 104 of the Act has issued the impugned notification empowering the municipalities to levy the tax on buildings and land based on carpet area and fixing the minimum and maximum rate of tax as specified in columns (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Table set out therein for the class of municipalities specified in column (1) of the said Table. Pursuant to the said notification the respondent municipality passed a resolution dated 29th April, 2008 determining three rates of taxes each for residential areas and other than residential areas based on the location of the buildings or lands. It appears that subsequently the Director of Municipalities vide e-mail dated 09th May, 2008 informed the municipality that determining three rates of taxes for residential and other than residential buildings and lands was not proper and directed the municipality to fix only one rate of tax in respect of each class of buildings viz. residential and other than residential. Pursuant thereto, the respondent municipality vide resolution No. 35 dated 31st July, 2008 inter-alia determined the rate of tax for residential properties at Rs. 5/- per square metre and for other than residential properties at Rs. 8/- per square metre. Based on the said resolution, the respondent municipality prepared assessment list and issued a public notice dated 12th August, 2008 inviting objections in respect of the same. 5/- per square metre and for other than residential properties at Rs. 8/- per square metre. Based on the said resolution, the respondent municipality prepared assessment list and issued a public notice dated 12th August, 2008 inviting objections in respect of the same. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted its objections. After giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, the respondent municipality, vide resolution No. 43 dated 13th October, 2008 rejected the objections holding that the assessment made based on carpet area is in accordance with law. Based on the said assessment list, the respondent municipality has issued bill dated 13th January, 2009 under section 132 of the Act whereby the rate of tax comes to Rs. 18/- per square metre, which according to the petitioner is beyond the maximum limit prescribed by the Government. 34. From the Scheme of Chapter VIII of the Act, it is apparent that the levy of tax on lands and buildings in the normal course would be by imposition of tax under section 99 of the Act and the rates of tax would be decided by the concerned municipality in accordance with the factors prescribed by the State Government under the Rules framed in this regard after following the procedure prescribed under sections 101 to 103 of the Act. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that no procedure as prescribed under sections 101 to 103 of the Act has been followed. Whereas section 99A of the Act empowers the State Government to frame rules prescribing factors which have to be taken into consideration by the municipality for deciding the rate of tax, it also lays down that the rate of tax shall be decided by the municipality with the approval of the Director of Municipalities. Section 99A of the Act does not in any manner empower the State Government to do away with the statutory right of the municipality to decide the rate of tax and requirement of approval of such decision of municipality by the Director of Municipalities. Moreover, section 99A of the Act provides for the municipality to levy tax at such rates as may be determined by it having regard to the factors as the State Government may by rules prescribe. The State Government under section 99A of the Act is only required to prescribe factors and nothing else. Moreover, section 99A of the Act provides for the municipality to levy tax at such rates as may be determined by it having regard to the factors as the State Government may by rules prescribe. The State Government under section 99A of the Act is only required to prescribe factors and nothing else. It can only by rules prescribe factors, which the municipality has to apply. Once such rules are prescribed, the concerned municipality is required to determine the rates of tax keeping in view the factors prescribed. The said provision does not contemplate issuance of any further notification under section 104 of the Act by the Government prescribing minimum and maximum rates. However, rule 3 of the Rules framed in exercise of powers under section 99A of the Act lays down that while determining such rates the maximum and minimum rates as may be prescribed by the State Government under section 104 of the Act shall be kept in mind and in such case it would not be necessary to obtain the prior permission of the Director of Municipalities. Thus, the role of the Government insofar as section 99A of the Act is concerned is to frame rules prescribing factors. There is no power conferred on the Government under section 99A of the Act to frame rules contrary to the provisions of the said section or to provide for any further act by the Government subsequent to the framing of the rules. Thus, rule 3 of the Rules which provides that while determining rates for buildings and lands, the maximum and minimum rates as may be prescribed by the State Government under section 104 of the Act shall be kept in mind and in such case it would not be necessary to obtain the prior permission of the Director of Municipalities, is clearly not only contrary to the provisions of section 99A of the Act, but in effect does away with the procedure prescribed by sections 101 and 102 of the Act. Thus going beyond the Rule making powers available under the Statute. 35. For the purpose of examining the validity of the impugned notification, which has been issued under section 104 of the Act, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of section 104 of the Act, which reads thus: “104. Thus going beyond the Rule making powers available under the Statute. 35. For the purpose of examining the validity of the impugned notification, which has been issued under section 104 of the Act, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of section 104 of the Act, which reads thus: “104. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette empower any municipality to levy any tax or to increase or reduce the amount or rate of any tax levied under section 99 within such maximum and minimum limits either as to the amount or the rate as may be specified in such notification. (2) Notwithstanding any resolution or rule under section 101 specifying the amount or rate at which such tax is leviable, any municipality empowered under sub-section (1) may, by a resolution passed at a general meeting decide to levy such tax or increase or reduce the amount or rate at which such tax is leviable. (3) When a municipality has by a resolution passed under sub-section (2) decided to levy any tax or to increase or reduce the amount or rate at which any tax is leviable, the municipality shall publish in the municipal borough the resolution together with notice specifying a date, which shall not be less than one month from the date of publication of such notice, from which the tax shall be levied or the amount or rate at which any tax is leviable shall be increased or reduced. The tax shall thereupon be levied or as the case may be, the amount or rate thereof shall be increased or reduced from the date specified in such notice.” 36. On a conjoint reading of sections 99, 99A, 101, 102 and 103 and section 104 of the Act, it is apparent that under the Scheme of taxation under the Act, ordinarily tax is to be imposed under section 99 of the Act at the rate determined in terms of the provisions of section 99A after following the procedure prescribed under section 101 to 103 of the Act. Section 104 of the Act is a self contained independent provision under which the State Government can by notification in the Official Gazette empower a municipality to levy a tax or to increase or reduce a tax levied under section 99 of the Act within such maximum and minimum limits either as to the amount or the rate as may be specified in such notification. Sub-section (2) of section 104 opens with a non-obstante clause which empowers a municipality by resolution to decide to levy such tax or increase or reduce the amount or rate at which tax is leviable under any resolution or rule under section 101 of the Act. Sub-section (3) provides for publication of the resolution and the date from which the tax shall be levied or the amount or rate at which any tax leviable shall be increased or reduced. From the very nature of the provision, it is apparent that powers under section 104 of the Act are to be exercised in a quasi-emergent situation. For example where the municipality has levied tax after following due procedure under sections 99 to 103 of the Act and tax payers are aggrieved by such levy, in such circumstances, the State Government may resort to section 104 of the Act. Thus, section 104 of the Act is not an omnibus provision whereby levy can be imposed on municipalities at large in normal conditions. It is more in the nature of a safety valve, which can take care of emergent situations and is not meant to be a substitute for the provisions of sections 99 to 103 of the Act, which is exactly what has happened in the present case. In the present case, instead of the municipality imposing tax on buildings and lands based on the carpet area by adopting the procedure prescribed under sections 99 to 103 of the Act, the State Government vide notification issued under section 104 of the Act seeks to bypass all such statutory provisions and empower the municipalities to levy tax as provided under the said notification. 37. Moreover, as has rightly been contended on behalf of the petitioner, section 99A of the Act does not empower the State Government to issue notification under section 104 of the Act. 37. Moreover, as has rightly been contended on behalf of the petitioner, section 99A of the Act does not empower the State Government to issue notification under section 104 of the Act. In exercise of powers under section 104 of the Act, the State Government can either empower a municipality to levy or to increase or reduce the amount or rate of tax levied under section 99 of the Act within such maximum and minimum limits as may be specified in such notification. Thus, though section 104 of the Act operates independent of section 99 of the Act, yet it is not absolutely independent and does not invest the State Government with unbridled power. The said section has direct nexus with section 99 of the Act when it permits the State Government to empower a municipality to levy/increase/reduce “any tax” referred to in section 99 of the Act. Section 104 of the Act hence cannot be construed to be an independent source of power in the State Government so as to divest a municipality of the statutory power to levy any one or more of the taxes specified in section 99 of the Act. 38. Section 99A of the Act on the other hand has no independent existence and is only enacted only for the purpose of section 99 of the Act. In the circumstances, while issuing a notification under section 104 of the Act, the provisions of section 99 and section 99A of the Act cannot be bypassed. The rate of tax specified under section 104 of the Act has to be independent and yet in consonance of section 99A of the Act and resort can be made to the provisions of section 104 of the Act only in extraordinary circumstances, and not as a substitute for the normal Scheme of taxation as provided under sections 99 to 103 of the Act. The impugned notification dated 1st April, 2008 is therefore without any authority or jurisdiction insofar as the same is issued under section 99A of the Act and is also violative of the provisions of section 104 of the Act inasmuch as the same has been issued as a substitute for ordinary mode of levy of property tax under sections 99 to 103 of the Act and as such cannot be sustained. 39. 39. Insofar as the validity of resolution No. 411 dated 29th April, 2008 read with resolution No. 35 dated 31st July, 2008 is concerned, apart from the fact that the same have been issued in exercise of powers conferred by the notification dated 1st April, 2008 which has been held to be invalid as discussed above, the said resolution also does not satisfy the conditions laid down under section 104 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of section 104 of the Act provides that where a municipality has by a resolution passed under sub-section (2) decided to levy any tax or increase or reduce the amount or rate at which any tax is leviable, the municipality shall publish in the municipal borough the resolution together with notice specifying a date, which shall not be less than one month from the date of publication of such notice, from which the tax shall be levied or the amount or rate at which any tax is leviable shall be increased or reduced. The tax shall thereupon be levied or as the case may be, the amount or rate thereof shall be increased or reduced from the date specified in such notice. In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the resolution passed by the municipality under sub-section (2) of section 104 of the Act has not been published as required under sub-section (3) of section 104 of the Act. Instead, the municipality has on the basis of the notification and resolution passed by it, directly prepared the assessment list under section 105 of the Act and has published the same and invited objections in respect of the same under section 107 of the Act. Thus, the levy of tax pursuant to the resolution passed by the municipality under sub-section (2) of section 104 of the Act is bad in law, as the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 104 the Act for levy of the same has not been followed. 40. There is another aspect of the matter. Thus, the levy of tax pursuant to the resolution passed by the municipality under sub-section (2) of section 104 of the Act is bad in law, as the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 104 the Act for levy of the same has not been followed. 40. There is another aspect of the matter. As noted hereinabove the levy of tax or increase or reduction in the amount or rate of tax on the basis of the resolution passed by the municipality under sub-section (2) of section 104 of the Act would come into force from the date specified in the notice published along with the resolution which should be a date not less than a month after the publication of such notice. Even according to the respondent State, section 104 of the Act enables the State Government to empower any municipality to levy tax, within such maximum and minimum limits as may be specified in the notification and the municipality so empowered, notwithstanding any resolution or rules under section 101 of the Act, is entitled to pass a resolution at a general meeting to levy such tax, which comes into effect upon publication of the resolution and the date of its coming into force. In the present case in the absence of publication of the resolution together with notice specifying the date of levy of the tax, the levy would not come into effect at all, since the same can come into force only after the publication of the notice along with the resolution on such date as may be specified in the notice. In the circumstances, in the absence of any notice specifying the date on which the tax would be leviable along with publication of the resolution, the demand of tax based on such resolution is illegal and ab initio void as being contrary to the provisions of section 104 of the Act. 41. To summarise: (i) Rule 3 of the Rules which provides that while determining the rates for building and lands, the maximum and minimum rates as may be prescribed by the State Government under section 104 of the Act shall be kept in mind and in such case, it would not be necessary to obtain the prior permission of the Director of Municipalities, is contrary to the provision of section 99A of the Act. (ii) The impugned notification dated 01st April, 2008 is without any authority or jurisdiction insofar as the same is issued under section 99A of the Act and is also violative of the provisions of section 104 of the Act inasmuch as the same has been issued as a substitute for the ordinary mode of levy of property tax under section 99 to 103 of the Act. (iii) The levy of tax pursuant to the resolution No. 411 dated 29th April, 2008 as amended by resolution no. 35 dated 31st July, 2008 passed by the Municipality under sub-section (2) of section 104 of the Act is bad in law, as the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 104 of the Act for the levy of the same has not been followed. (iv) In the absence of any notice specifying the date on which the tax would be leviable alongwith publication of the resolution, the demand of tax based on such resolution is illegal and ab initio void as being contrary to the provisions of section104 of the Act. 42. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not deem it fit to decide the issue regarding constitutional validity of section 99A of the Act leaving it open for the petitioner to agitate the same in an appropriate case. 43. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is allowed to the following extent:- (i) Rule 3 of the Gujarat Municipalities Property Tax Rules, 2007 as well as the Notification dated 01st April, 2008 framed by the Government of Gujarat are hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) The levy of property tax on the basis of revised rates as decided by Resolution No. 411 dated 29th April, 2008 read with Resolution No. 35 dated 31st July, 2008 is also quashed and set aside. 44. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.