ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, learned Standing Counsels appearing for the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Government. 2. Since the issue involved in this batch of cases are identical and all petitioners are Educational Institutions, they were heard together and disposed of by this Court by a common order. 3. For convenience, W.P.No.2674 of 2016 is taken as the lead case. As pointed out earlier, the petitioners have a common grievance against the respondents viz., Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board [hereinafter referred to as “CMWSSB”] and the Corporation of Chennai. The grievance being arbitrary increase in the demand of water and sewerage tax from the petitioners. The other and more important common feature in all these cases is that all the petitioners are Educational Institutions situated in the City of Chennai. The undisputed fact being that the respondent Corporation has exempted the petitioners building from the levy of property tax in terms of Section 101 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1990 as the building is used for Educational purposes. As on date, CMWSSB does not have a separate mechanism for assessment of the annual value of the building for the purpose of arriving at the rate of water and sewerage tax, though Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board's Water Tax and Sewerage Tax (Levy and Collection) Regulations, 1991 provide for a method of assessment of the annual value of the building for the purpose of computing the rate of water and sewerage tax. This procedure is contained in Regulations No.11 to 15 which deals with the 'Annual Value'. Regulations 16 to 18 which deals with 'Revision of Assessment' and 'Escaped Assessments' is dealt with under Regulation 19. 4. So far as the taxes leviable by the CMWSSB are stipulated in Section 34 of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 (the Act). Regulations 16 to 18 which deals with 'Revision of Assessment' and 'Escaped Assessments' is dealt with under Regulation 19. 4. So far as the taxes leviable by the CMWSSB are stipulated in Section 34 of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 (the Act). Section 35 of the Act deals with Assessment of Annual Value and sub-section (3) of Section 35 states that till such time as the annual valuation of land and buildings is determined under the CMWSS Act, the annual value of land and buildings for the purposes of the said Act, shall be the annual value as assessed by a Municipal Corporation, Municipality, Panchayat or other like authority. So far as the impugned demands are concerned, it is based on the annual value of the building as assessed by the Chennai Corporation and though there is power vested, both under the Act and the Regulations to independently assesse the properties for ascertaining the annual value for the purpose of levying water and sewerage tax, the respondent Board has continued to exercise powers only under Section 35(3). In fact, in two decisions of this Court viz., in the case of The Madras Sanskrit College & S.S.V. Patasala V. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and another [2009-5-L.W.320], it has been held that the assessment is required to be done in accordance with Section 34 of the CMWSS Act, 1978 and it has been further held Section 35 of the Act is only a temporary provision. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of M.O.P. Iyengar Charities v. The Special Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), C.M.W.S.S. Board and others [ 2007 (3) CTC 270 ]. Thus, it has to be seen as to whether the impugned demand raised by the CMWSSB are just and proper. One important and common feature in all the cases is that the petitioners have not been served with the copies of the notice proposing to revise the annual value of the building issued by the Corporation of Chennai. The petitioners would state that only after the impugned demand notices were issued by the CMWSSB, they approached the Corporation of Chennai and secured copies of the notices issued in Form No.6, from which they were shocked to find that the annual value of the building has been proposed to be revised multifold. The petitioners would state that only after the impugned demand notices were issued by the CMWSSB, they approached the Corporation of Chennai and secured copies of the notices issued in Form No.6, from which they were shocked to find that the annual value of the building has been proposed to be revised multifold. Therefore, it is the submission of the petitioners that they had no opportunity to question the same more so when all the buildings were exempt from payment of property tax to the Corporation of Chennai. 5. By way of illustration, so far as the writ petitioner in W.P.No.2674 of 2016 is concerned, the annual value as assessed by the Corporation of Chennai at Rs.20,748/- and the water tax which was paid for every connection given to the school was at the rate of Rs.726/- per half year. The Corporation has now revised the annual value of the building to Rs.3,35,803/- and based on that, the respondent has demanded half yearly water tax at Rs.41,640/- which is 57 times more than the original fixation. Therefore, it is submitted that if the Corporation of Chennai is to revise the annual value of the building, then, it should have been done in a proper manner following the assessment procedure and merely because the buildings are exempt from payment of property tax that does not mean that the procedure to be followed for assessment has to be given by a go by. It is further submitted that the procedure for proper assessment of the annual value has to be followed because such value fixed by the Corporation of Chennai is taken by the CMWSSB for the purpose of computation of water and sewerage tax. 6. After elaborately hearing the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the learned standing counsels for the respondent Board and the Chennai Corporation , I find the problem had arisen on account of improper manner in which the Corporation of Chennai has proceeded to determine the annual value of the building. In none of the cases, the petitioners had been put on notice before the annual value as proposed in the Form 6 Notices was determined that too proposing revision of the annual value with retrospective effect. In none of the cases, the petitioners had been put on notice before the annual value as proposed in the Form 6 Notices was determined that too proposing revision of the annual value with retrospective effect. Though the petitioners may not be financially affected on account of the revision of annual value by the Corporation of Chennai because no property tax is demanded, they are put to prejudice when the same value is adopted by the CMWSSB for fixing the rate of water and sewerage tax. It may be a different matter, if this respondent Board had independently assessed the annual value of the building by exercising power under Section 34 read with Section 35 of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. However, they have not done so, but have stated that they are adopted the annual value as fixed by the Corporation of Chennai. Therefore, such assessment of the annual value by the Corporation of Chennai should be in a proper manner where the assessee/building owner is entitled to full and effective opportunity to put forth their objections. It is rather surprising that though the Chennai Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Act came into force in 1978 and the Regulations were also framed soon thereafter, till date the respondents have not resorted to independent assessment proceedings as provided under Section 34 and Section 35(1) (2) of the Act and continue to take umbrage under a temporary/transitory provision namely Section 35(3). In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, the CMWSSB, by referring to G.O.(Ms).No.123, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Metro Water) Department, dated 21.12.2012 stated that there is no separate machinery available with them for assessment of the annual value of a building and therefore, they are adopting the annual value as determined by the Corporation of Chennai. This explanation appears to be a reasonable explanation offered by the CMWSSB. As long as Section 35(3) of the Act remains in statute, the CMWSSB cannot be faulted for having reported to the procedure stipulated therein. Nevertheless the annual value of the building has to be properly assessed by the respondent Corporation. 7. This explanation appears to be a reasonable explanation offered by the CMWSSB. As long as Section 35(3) of the Act remains in statute, the CMWSSB cannot be faulted for having reported to the procedure stipulated therein. Nevertheless the annual value of the building has to be properly assessed by the respondent Corporation. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the fixation of the annual value of the building, they would be prevented from approaching the Taxation Tribunal, in view of the embargo in Clause 12 of Part V of Schedule IV of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 which states that no appeal shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless the appellant deposits in the Corporation the existing tax and also fifty per cent of the difference between the existing tax and the tax as assessed by the Commissioner in the revision. The petitioners need not have any apprehension that they would be left remediless as it has been accepted by the learned standing counsel for the Corporation that only when there is tax payable, the pre-deposit of 50% of the enhanced tax would be insisted upon. However, in the case of petitioner institutions which are exempted from payment of tax, such provision will not be made applicable by the Taxation Appellate Tribunal and whoever is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner fixing the annual value of the building could approach the Tribunal challenging such fixation without being called upon to pay or deposit any money. As pointed out earlier, the proposed revision of the annual value of the buildings owned by the petitioners is with retrospective effect and in certain cases with effect from 2011 - 2012 onwards. When there is a proposal of retrospective revision, the assessee is entitled to proper opportunity by way of a show cause notice, before show cause notice is issued, there should have been an inspection of the building. This inspection will benefit both the petitioners as well as the respondents in the sense the petitioners will be able to point out the correct usage of the building, the area, type of construction etc. As far as the respondents are concerned, they will be able to ascertain as to whether any additional constructions have been put up or any changes have been effected to the existing structure etc. As far as the respondents are concerned, they will be able to ascertain as to whether any additional constructions have been put up or any changes have been effected to the existing structure etc. and also to ascertain as to whether any unauthorised constructions have been put up. Therefore, the pre-requisite before revision of the annual value is an inspection of the premises. In certain cases, the respondent Corporation has stated that they have conducted inspection of the buildings, however, those owners have challenged the orders before this Court contending that the inspections have been conducted without notice to them as a result once again the matter is dragged into prolonged litigation thereby rendering it virtually impossible for the respondents to recover the taxes. Therefore, prior to inspection being conducted by the officials of the Corporation of Chennai, the owners of the property have to be put on notice and it is in their presence the inspection requires to be conducted. 8. One important contention raised by the petitioners is that the buildings have been assessed solely based on the square feet area shown has been held to be impermissible in the case of B.R.Dalavai V. Government of Tamil Nadu, [ (1978) 91 L.W. 110 ] which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, in the instant cases, on a perusal of the Form No.6 Notice issued by the Corporation of Chennai, the square feet of the building alone appears to be not the sole basis for the assessment, but the floor in which the building is situated, the built up area, the usage, occupancy, type of construction and then, the basic tax rate to be adopted is taken into consideration. However, this is a matter to be raised by the petitioners at the time when the annual value of the building is fixed by the Corporation of Chennai. 9. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Board submitted that the petitioners should be directed to pay atleast 50% of the enhanced water tax as demanded in the impugned orders. I am unable to accede to such a request on account of the fact that the very assessment of the annual value of the building is incorrect. Therefore, based on such incorrect assessment, water and sewerage tax has been revised and demanded. I am unable to accede to such a request on account of the fact that the very assessment of the annual value of the building is incorrect. Therefore, based on such incorrect assessment, water and sewerage tax has been revised and demanded. Thus, when the basis itself is incorrect, the respondent Board cannot insist that the Court should issue a direction to the petitioners to pay atleast a portion of the increased demand of water and sewerage tax. 10. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioners to question the revision of assessment of the annual value of the petitioners' building by the Corporation of Chennai coupled with certain directions. Till the annual value is properly determined by the Corporation of Chennai, the enhanced rate of water and sewerage tax as demanded in the impugned demands has to be kept in abeyance and the petitioners shall continue to pay the Water and Sewerage Tax at the old rates. 11. In the result, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions: 1. The respondent/Corporation of Chennai is directed to inspect all the buildings owned by the petitioners after issuing notice to the respective managements, to note down the physical features of the building, the area and occupation, land area, type of construction, category of ownership, the built up area etc. and prepare an inspection report. 2. Based on the inspection report, the respondent Corporation is directed to issue a provisional assessment notice enclosing copy of the inspection report giving the petitioners 15 days time to submit their objections to the competent authority. 3. On receipt of the objections, the competent authority shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the respective petitioners and pass final assessment orders on merits and in accordance with law. 4. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the fixation of the Annual Value of the Building as may be fixed by the respondent - Corporation of Chennai, they are at liberty to file appeal to the Taxation Appellate Tribunal and they are not required to pay 50% of the enhanced tax as stipulated under Clause 12 of Part V of Schedule IV of the CCMC Act as the petitioners buildings are exempt from payment of property tax. 5. 5. Till the annual value of the building is fixed in terms of the above direction, the petitioners shall continue to pay the water and sewerage tax as per the pre-revised rates without any default and the impugned demands shall be kept in abeyance. 6. The respondent/Corporation is directed to complete the above exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.