Judgment Debangsu Basak, J. The writ petitioners have questioned the authority of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to demand surcharge on property tax on and from May 1, 2007 till January 1, 2012 in view of the omission of Section 171(4) of the Act, 1980 on May 1, 2007 and the coming into effect of Section 232A of the Act of 1980 on January 1, 2012. The writ petitioners contend that, Section 171(4) as it stood prior to its repeal with effect from May 1, 2007 had permitted the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to realize surcharge on property tax. Since Section 171(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 stood repealed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 and the Government had given effect thereto on and from May 1, 2007, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities lost their right to demand surcharge on property tax with effect from May 1, 2007. Referring to the property tax bills for the first quarter 2008-2009 till fourth quarter 2008-2009 it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, the annual valuation is not under challenge. The Corporation authorities have levied quarterly surcharge of Rs.5,32,920.50p. which the Corporation authorities are not entitled to levy. Referring to the definition of property tax which had existed under Section 2(20) and the present definition under Section 2(68A) of the Act of 1980 it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, the new concept of property tax does not include a surcharge. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, since the writ petitioners have paid the surcharge as demanded in the tax bill at page 49 of the writ petition and since the writ petitioners are not liable to pay the same, the Corporation authorities should be directed to refund such amount immediately to the writ petitioners. Referring to an interim order passed by the Division Bench it is submitted that, the Division Bench had directed the Corporation authorities to raise bills upon the writ petitioners without incorporating the surcharge. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, all property tax bills raised by the Corporation authorities have since been paid. The writ petition is opposed by the Corporation authorities. It is submitted that, the writ petitioners are liable to pay the surcharge as demanded. The writ petitioners have not challenged the assessment of annual valuation prior to 2006. The writ petition is opposed by the Corporation authorities. It is submitted that, the writ petitioners are liable to pay the surcharge as demanded. The writ petitioners have not challenged the assessment of annual valuation prior to 2006. In view of the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 the annual valuation not being under challenge, the Corporation authorities are entitled to demand surcharge. Referring to Section 232A of the Act of 1980 it is submitted that, the provisions of Section 171(4) remain in force until publication of the scheme under Section 174(1) of the Act of 1980. Although the provisions of Section 232A of the Act of 1980 has come into effect from January 1, 2012 such section has to be read to mean that it has a retrospective effect. Section 179 of the Act of 1980 is referred to and it is submitted that the annual valuation having attained finality and not being under challenge the right to demand and receive surcharge cannot be questioned. In reply, it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, Section 179 of the Act of 1980 is not attracted as the annual valuation is not under challenge. The authority to levy surcharge was under Section 171(4) of the Act of 1980 and the same stood omitted with effect from May 1, 2007. The provisions of Section 232A of the Act of 1980 cannot be construed to be of retrospective effect. In this respect the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 as well as the Gazette Notification relating thereto have been relied upon. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. The first writ petitioner is an assessee of property tax in respect of Premises No. 29, Pollock Street, Kolkata- 700 001. Section 170 of the Act of 1980 allows the Corporation authorities to levy taxes. Section 170(1)(a) read with Section 171 of the Act of 1980 empowers the Corporation to levy property tax on lands and buildings. The annual valuation of an immovable property is determined under Section 174 of the Act of 1980. Sections 179 and 180 of the Act of 1980 allow the Corporation authorities to assess the annual value of any land and building on a periodic basis and to revise such assessment. The annual valuation of an immovable property is determined under Section 174 of the Act of 1980. Sections 179 and 180 of the Act of 1980 allow the Corporation authorities to assess the annual value of any land and building on a periodic basis and to revise such assessment. Section 171(4) of the Act of 1980 as it stood prior to its omission by the Act of 2006 had empowered the Corporation authorities to levy a surcharge on the property tax. The Act of 1980 has been amended from time to time. By the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 various sections of the Act of 1980 have been amended. Sub-section (4) of Section 171 of the Act of 1980 was omitted by the Amendment Act of 2006. The Amendment Act of 2006 came into effect on May 1, 2007. Consequently, with effect from May 1, 2007 the Corporation authorities lost the power to levy surcharge under Section 171(4) of the Act of 1980. The Amendment Act of 2006 did not give a corresponding power to the Corporation authorities to levy surcharge as that of Section 171(4) of the Act of 1980 when it had omitted Subsection (4) of Section 171 of the Act of 1980. By the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2011, Section 232A has been introduced in the Act of 1980. Section 232A of the Act of 1980 as introduced by the Amendment Act of 2011 provides inter alia that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1980 the provisions of Section 171 which were in force immediately prior to the commencement of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 shall continue to be in force until the final publication of the scheme under Sub-section (1) of Section 174 of the Act as amended by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006. Section 232A of the Act of 1980 has come into effect on and from January 1, 2012. Therefore, on and from January 1, 2012 the Corporation authorities resumed their right to levy surcharge in terms of Section 171(4) of the Act of 1980. The levy of surcharge involved in the present writ petition is for the period 2008-2009. The Corporation authorities claim that by virtue of Section 232A of the Act of 1980, they have the right to levy such surcharge. This contention of the Corporation authorities is without any basis. The levy of surcharge involved in the present writ petition is for the period 2008-2009. The Corporation authorities claim that by virtue of Section 232A of the Act of 1980, they have the right to levy such surcharge. This contention of the Corporation authorities is without any basis. The property tax bill for 2008-2009 has been raised contemporaneously and at least much prior to the coming into effect of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2011. Moreover, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2011 does not state that retrospective effect is to be given to Section 232A of the Act of 1980. The Amendment Act of 2011 does not state that the provisions of Section 171(4) of the Act of 1980 shall be deemed not to have been omitted for the period between the coming into effect the Amendment Act of 2006 and the coming into effect the Amendment Act of 2011. Section 171(4) of the Act of 1980 is a provision which allows the statutory authority to impose surcharge which is in the nature of tax imposed over and above the property tax. The surcharge can loosely be said to be a tax on the property. No authority has been cited before me to suggest that the wordings of the Amendment Act of 2011 and Section 232A of the Act of 1980 are such that they are to be considered to have retrospective effect. No authority has also been cited before me to suggest that a provision of law imposing surcharge on property tax can be given retrospective effect without the statute providing for the same. In my view, Section 232A does not have retrospective effect. The annual valuation of the property tax is not under challenge. On the annual valuation of the property for a particular period attaining finality, the same does not correspondingly give a right to the Corporation authorities to levy surcharge during the period when Section 171(4) of the Act of 1980 stood omitted and the period when Section 232A of the Act of 1980 came into effect. Section 179 of the Act of 1980 does not vest the Corporation authorities the power to levy surcharge as sought to be suggested on behalf of the Corporation authorities during their submissions. Section 179 of the Act of 1980 deals with periodic assessment. Section 179 of the Act of 1980 does not vest the Corporation authorities the power to levy surcharge as sought to be suggested on behalf of the Corporation authorities during their submissions. Section 179 of the Act of 1980 deals with periodic assessment. Such periodic assessment having attained finality the right to levy surcharge flows from Section 171(4) of the Act of 1980. However, such right ceased for the period between the date of its omission and the coming into effect of Section 232A of the Act of 1980. The demand for surcharge made in the property tax bill is, therefore, without any jurisdiction. The writ petitioners having paid the same are entitled to refund thereof from the Corporation authorities. In such circumstance, the Corporation authorities will refund the sum of Rs. 5,32,920.50p. to the first writ petitioner within four weeks from date. The demand for surcharge made in the property tax bill for the period 2008-2009 is set aside. The Corporation authorities will not realize any surcharge from the first writ petitioner for the period from May 1, 2007 till January 1, 2012. With the aforesaid directions W.P. No. 668 of 2011 is allowed. No order as to costs.