ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. Challenge to the action of the respondents in effecting seizure of petitioner’s property amongst other grounds is also premised on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notice was issued in the name of Ram Gopal Saini, whereas it is the petitioner who is the sole proprietor of the establishment/Saini Stone. He would further submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing and inviting his reply, the impugned action has been taken by which the premises have been sealed and in this manner, the petitioner has been subjected to coercive action towards recovery of huge amount without following the procedure of law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner’s statement in this regard is factually incorrect. It is submitted that the notice was taken at the spot and the petitioner was found. He was asked to take notice but he refused to take the same, therefore, he cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the State would also submit that photographs which have been attached with the reply proved that the petitioner had received notice but refused to give acknowledgment. 5. It is well settled that no tax can be levied or collected except with authority of law which is a constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of imposition of urban development tax under the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short ‘the Act of 2009’) read with Rajasthan Municipalities (Urban Development Tax), Rules 2007, the law mandates notice before taking extreme measures; like seizure of property on the allegations of non-payment of tax. Section 131(1) of the Municipalities Act provides for detailed provision with regard to collection and recovery of tax. Section 130 mandates that if the sum for which any bill has been presented is not paid into the municipal Office or to a person authorized by any rule in that behalf to receive such payment, within 15 days from the presentation thereof, the Municipality may cause to be served upon the person to whom such bill has been presented and a notice of demand in the form Fourth Schedule or to the like effect. 6. Section 131 provides for further proceedings that may be drawn including attachment of property towards recovery. 6. Section 131 provides for further proceedings that may be drawn including attachment of property towards recovery. The provision being relevant is extracted herein below:- “130. Notice of demand. - If the sum for which any bill has been presented as aforesaid is not paid into the municipal office or to a person authorized by any rule in that behalf to receive such payment, within fifteen days from the presentation thereof, the Municipality may cause to be served upon the person to whom such bill has been presented, a notice of demand in the form of the Fourth Schedule or to the like effect. 131. In what cases warrant may issue. - (1) If the person on whom a notice of demand has been served under Section 130 does not, within fifteen days from the service of such notice of demand, either,- (a) pay the sum demanded in the notice, or (b) show cause to the satisfaction of the Municipality, or of such officer as the Municipality by rule may appoint in this behalf, or of the Chief Municipal Officer, if any, why he should not pay the same, or (c) prefer an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 121 against the demand,-such sum with all costs of the recovery may be levied by attachment and sale of any property of the defaulter and in case of attachment of movable property, the warrant shall be caused to be issued by the Chief Municipal Office in the form of the Fifth Schedule or to the like effect and in the case of attachment of immovable property, the warrant shall be caused to be issued by the Municipality in such form as may be prescribed. (2) No warrant for attachment and sale shall be issued under sub-Section (1) for the recovery of any sum due to the Municipality under this Act after the expiration of a period of three years from the date on which such warrant might have been issued under that sub-Section: Provided that after the expiry of the said period of three years the Municipality shall be entitled to request the concerned authorities for recovery of any sum due to the Municipality as arrears of land revenue. (3) Every warrant shall be signed and issued by the Chief Municipal Officer. (3) Every warrant shall be signed and issued by the Chief Municipal Officer. (4) Where such property is within the jurisdiction of the Municipality, the warrant shall be addressed to an officer of the Municipality. (5) Where such property is in another Municipality or in a place, which is not a Municipality, the warrant shall be addressed to the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipality concerned or to the Tehsildar, as the case may be: Provided that such Chief Municipal Officer or Tehsildar may endorse such warrant to a subordinate officer.” 6.1 Sub section (1) of Section 131 provides for notice. It is only when despite service of notice under Section 131(1), a person fails to make payment, the authority may proceed with further action including attachment. 6.2 The notice which has been annexed with the petition shows that a notice was issued in the name of Ram Gopal Saini. Reply of the respondents does not show that any notice in the name of the petitioner has been issued. The certificate regarding shop issued under the provisions of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 shows that the establishment is in the name of the petitioner-Harendra Saini. Moreover, according to the respondents, the liability is on the petitioner-Harendra Saini. We fail to understand if according to the respondents, the liability was on Harendra Saini then under what circumstances, notice was issued in the name of any other person. 7. Be that as it may, respondents in their reply have failed to come out with any notice issued in the name of the petitioner or any acknowledgment of receipt of notice, much less any Panchanama prepared by any responsible Officer of the Municipality that an attempt was made to serve notice on the petitioner but he refused to take the same. What has been done is that certain photographs have been placed on record. The photographs are being relied upon to show that petitioner had received notice. The photograph does not prove any such statement on affidavit made by respondents. What was held in the hand of the petitioner is not known. Moreover, this cannot be accepted as proof of service of notice. 8. The photographs are being relied upon to show that petitioner had received notice. The photograph does not prove any such statement on affidavit made by respondents. What was held in the hand of the petitioner is not known. Moreover, this cannot be accepted as proof of service of notice. 8. In the result, we find that the manner in which the respondents have proceeded against the petitioner, not only violates the provisions contained in Section 130 and 131 of the Act of 2009 but also constitutional mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The law not only with regard to levy but also with regard to collection and recovery has to be scrupulously followed. Recovery procedure cannot be allowed to be continued against the provisions of law. 9. In that view of the matter, the action of the respondents in attaching the property of the petitioner is declared illegal. The respondents shall forthwith release the property from attachment. We leave the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in the name of the petitioner, if any, towards recovery of tax due and payable by the petitioner with liberty to recover the same in accordance with law. 10 The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.