Judgment :- K.G. SHANKAR, J. 1. The respondent is unrepresented. This appeal is disposed of without hearing the respondent. 2. The appellant is the owner of residential premises bearing door no.54-3-9, Isukathota, Visakhapatnam. The house bears assessment No.42542. The appellant was paying tax at Rs.442/-per half year. The tax was enhanced from time to time and ultimately to Rs.3,474/-. When he preferred Tax Appeal No.71 of 2001 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, the tax was reduced to Rs.3,104/-. Assailing the same, appellant preferred this second appeal. 3. The tax was enhanced from Rs.442/-to Rs.1,260/-per half year for the year 1993-94. The appellant preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation-respondent. Without considering and without disposing the revision petition, the tax was further enhanced to Rs.2,520/-per half year. The appellant once again applied to the respondent by preferring a revision. 4. It is claimed that the respondent reduced the tax to Rs.1,991/-(sic) from 1993-94, although the demand for 1993-94 was Rs.1,260/-only. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant once again preferred revision before the respondent for a direction to the concerned authorities to refix the tax rationally from 1993-94 onwards. While things stood thus, the appellant received a demand notice dated 27.09.2000 enhancing the tax from Rs.1,991/-to Rs.17,806/-. Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision in R.P.No.43 of 2000/A9 before the respondent. The appellant was called by the authorities for an enquiry. However, without considering the case of the appellant, tax was fixed at Rs.3,474/-per half year and the revision was accordingly disposed of. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred T.A.No.71 of 2001. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, did not apply his mind and did not consider the case of the appellant in determining the tax at Rs.3,104/-per half year. 6. Para 8 of the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, under which the learned Judge reduced the tax from Rs.3,474/-to Rs.3,104/-is extracted below. “8. Except submitting oral arguments the Appellant has not adduced or filed any evidence to show that how the tax enhanced by the Corporation is exorbitant. On the other hand it appears as seen from the record available filed by the Corporation that on considering the contentions raised by the Appellant they fixed the enhanced tax as per the provisions laid down under HMC Act. On the other hand it appears as seen from the record available filed by the Corporation that on considering the contentions raised by the Appellant they fixed the enhanced tax as per the provisions laid down under HMC Act. Thus I have no hesitation to say that the respondent Corporation has imposed the property tax by giving reasons and at the same time the Appellant has also failed to prove its contention that the imposition of tax is illegal. It is not the case of the Appellant that they are not provided with basic amenities. However, taking into the submissions of the Appellant and considering the fact that the premises is situated at developed area provided with all basic amenities, I feel that if the tax is reduced from Rs.3,474/-to Rs.3,104/-it will meet the ends of Justice.” 7. As can be seen from the extracted order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, it appears that he did not apply his mind in determining the tax at Rs.3,104/-. No reasoning was assigned by the learned Senior Civil Judge for arriving at the amount of Rs.3,104/-as the tax per half year. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the questions like the enhancement of tax without following the rules and more particularly Section 208 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, and the non-issuance of general notice to public and inviting objections from the public have not been considered by the learned Senior Civil Judge. I, therefore, consider that this is a fit case where the second appeal deserves to be allowed remitting the case to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge for fresh consideration and disposal according to law. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order in T.A.No.71 of 2001 is set aside. The case is remitted to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for fresh disposal according to law, after according opportunity to both sides and disposing of the same on merits, more particularly assigning reasons for his conclusions. Where the dispute relates to the assessment of tax for 1993-94, the learned Senior Civil Judge is requested to dispose of the T.A.No.71 of 2001 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.