JUDGMENT : S.MANU, J. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment dated 7.1.2022 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.19085/2014. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge declared that Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 which prescribe fixation of property tax at a minimum of 25% over and above the tax levied for the previous year, is ultra vires the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. 2. First respondent filed the writ petition. He owns a building at Taliparamba. The Taliparamba Municipality assessed the entire building to property tax prior to 1.4.2011 on the basis of annual rental value. Contentions of the 1st respondent as stated in the writ petition are summarized as follows:- “The Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 was amended as per Act No.30 of 2009 as per which section 233 was substituted with a new provision envisaging fixation of property tax on the basis of location/zone, availability of road, plinth area, flooring and roofing materials used, age, floor status, materials used for walls, air-conditioning facility, nature of use etc. The amendment came into force on 7-10-2009. Thereafter the Government framed Kerala Municipality (Property tax, Service tax and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 by exercising the powers under Section 233(19) of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The said Rule was amended as per Kerala Municipality (Property tax, Service tax and Surcharge) (Amendment) Rules, 2013 with effect from 1-4-2013. In the mean time the Section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 also was amended as per Kerala Municipality (Second Amendment) Ordinance 2012 and Kerala Municipality (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance 2012 which came into force on 25-11-2012 and it was re-promulgated as Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Ordinance 2013. The ordinances were later replaced by Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 2014. As per the amended provisions the Government and Council respectively have given the power to revise the rates of basic tax in such manner as to have an enhancement of 25% on the existing limits and rates by the completion of every five years. The rule making power of the Government was amended so as to vest the Government with the power to make Rules regarding the determination of maximum and minimum limit of enhancement of annual property tax. The rule making power of the Government was amended so as to vest the Government with the power to make Rules regarding the determination of maximum and minimum limit of enhancement of annual property tax. Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) of Kerala Municipality (Property tax, Service tax and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 prescribe fixation of property tax at a minimum of 25% over and above the tax levied for the previous year even if Property tax arrived at on computation as per the said Rules is less than the tax levied for the previous year. Such a fixation is not warranted as per section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. Section 233(8) of Kerala Municipality Act 1994 says that the amount so arrived at by allowing deductions and making additions on the basic property tax under sub-section (7) shall be adjusted to the next higher whole number and the amount so assessed shall be the annual property tax of the building. The Rule making power under Section 233(19) of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 also does not empower the Government to fix a minimum property tax as provided in Rule 9(4-A) and (4-C) of the Rules. Hence Rule 9(4A) and 9(4C) of Kerala Municipality (Property tax, Service tax and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 are ultra vires to Section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and without any authority of law. As per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Since the property tax collected by the first respondent from the petitioner for the period from 1-4-2011 is under the old provision Section 233, it is unauthorised and illegal. If the Property tax is computed as per Section 233(7) and (8) the high rate of tax collected previously on the basis of annual rental value would have come down considerably. Therefore the first respondent is liable to refund the excess tax collected from the petitioner. 3. The learned Single Judge analysed the relevant provisions of the Act as also the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 and found merit in the contentions of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed by declaring Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) as ultra vires the parent Act. 4. We heard the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in detail. 5. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed by declaring Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) as ultra vires the parent Act. 4. We heard the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in detail. 5. The Government, in this writ appeal, contends that the learned Single Judge has declared the above said provisions as ultra vires without a deep analysis of the provisions of the Act. The Government is vested with the power under Section 233(2)(a) of the Municipality Act to fix the minimum and maximum limits of the basic property tax applicable to 1 sq.m. of plinth area of each type of building specified in the said Section. The provisions of Section 233(4) are also pointed out. Further, the Government pointed out that item (ii) under of sub-section (19) of Section 233 empowers the Government to determine maximum and minimum limits in enhancement of annual property tax. The crux of the contentions of the Government is that the above provisions undoubtedly empower the Government to frame the Rules in the manner, as has been done. The learned Advocate General pointed out that the Rules of 2011 were amended in 2013. It was also pointed out by the learned Advocate General that the Government issued G.O.(MS)No.144/2015/LSGD dated 27.4.2015 wherein it was directed that “in the case of buildings exceeding the plinth area of 2000 sq.ft, when the tax is fixed based on the plinth area from 01.04.2013, if there is any increase in tax for those buildings, such rate of tax shall not exceed 25% of the existing rate.” The learned Advocate General submitted that the provision as amended in 2013 mandating a minimum increase of 25% as provided under Rule 9(4)(a) and 9(4)(c) above was never sought to be implemented and the revision of tax was done on the basis of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 27.04.2015. It is hence argued that the grievance of the 1st respondent in fact stood redressed. The learned Advocate General further contended that Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) of the Rules of 2011 were challenged on the ground that they are ultra vires of the parent Section 233(4). But the substitution of the said provision by way of amendment was not noticed by the learned Single Judge. Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) were introduced by an amendment with effect from 01.04.2013 in terms of the amended Section 233(4). But the substitution of the said provision by way of amendment was not noticed by the learned Single Judge. Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) were introduced by an amendment with effect from 01.04.2013 in terms of the amended Section 233(4). The Rules were challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires the parent Section, but a reading of the amended Section 233(4) along with provisos will show that the Rules are made perfectly in terms of the amended Section. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the true impact of Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) is re-introduction of the basis of fixation of the tax under the earlier system, as the minimum enhancement of 25% of the previous assessment results in increase to the assessment made earlier on the basis of annual value. He also submitted that the provisions of the Act relied on by the Government for justifying the provisions of Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) in no way provide for incorporating the conditions put in place by the said Rules. Hence, he contended that the provisions of the above said Rules are ultra vires the Act and no interference is warranted with the conclusions of the learned Single Judge. 7. Rules which have been found ultra vires by the learned Single Judge are extracted hereunder:- “9. Criteria for assessment of the annual property tax of the building.- xxx xxx 4(a) When annual property tax of an existing building for residential purpose is assessed initially on the basis of plinth area, minimum of twenty five percentage addition shall be made in the previous property tax. xxx xxx (4c) When annual property tax of an existing building for commercial purpose is assessed initially on the basis of plinth area, minimum of twenty five percentage addition shall be made in the annual property tax existed immediately before.” Sub-rule (4) was substituted to the present form, by SRO No.212/2013 with effect from 01.04.2013. 8. It is relevant to note that amendments were brought to the Municipality Act by Act 8 of 2014. Sub-section (4) was substituted with effect from 25.11.2012. The provision, as amended, reads as follows:- “233. 8. It is relevant to note that amendments were brought to the Municipality Act by Act 8 of 2014. Sub-section (4) was substituted with effect from 25.11.2012. The provision, as amended, reads as follows:- “233. Property Tax.- xxx xxx (4) The limits of rates of basic property tax fixed by the Government under sub-section (2) and the rates of basic property tax once determined by the Council subject thereto under sub-section (3) shall be in force for five years from the date on which they come into force and thereafter on completion of every five years, the Government and the Council, respectively, shall, revise the rates of basic tax in such a manner as to have an enhancement of twenty five per cent on the existing limits and rates by the completion of the period of every five years, so as to be in force for the next five years. While assessing the tax in accordance with the revised rate of tax as stated above,- (a) in the case of buildings which are new, reconstructed and altered in usage, the Secretary shall fix the tax as prescribed and take further action; (b) in the case of building which does not belong to the category stated in Clause (a) and the annual property tax of which was fixed once based on the plinth area, the Council shall, for the purpose of revising the annual property tax for the succeeding five year period, revise the tax by enhancing the existing annual property tax along with twenty five per cent of the same and accordingly the Secretary shall give demand notice for next five years to the owner of the building: Provided that while revising such annual property tax, no deduction or enhancement under sub-section (7) shall be applicable.]” 9. Sub-section (19) of Section 233 provides power to the Government to make rules in respect of matters mentioned thereunder. By Act 8 of 2014, item (ii) under sub-section (19) was also substituted with effect from 25.11.2012. The newly introduced provision reads as follows:- “(ii) determination of the maximum and minimum limit of enhancement of annual property tax.” 10. We note that these legislative changes were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge examined the vires of Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) on the basis of un-amended provisions of Section 233. 11. We note that these legislative changes were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge examined the vires of Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) on the basis of un-amended provisions of Section 233. 11. Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) have been apparently introduced to ensure a minimum enhancement of annual property tax in the case of assessment with respect to buildings for residential purpose and buildings for commercial purpose respectively. Power to incorporate such a rule is evidently available to the Government under Section 233 (19) by virtue of introduction of the substituted item (ii) extracted above. Hence, we do not agree with the submission of the respondent that Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) are ultra vires the Act. 12. The other argument to be addressed is regarding the reference to the previous assessment in the above rules. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the rules therefore result in following assessment made on the basis of annual value as the basis for calculation, despite the change of the basis of taxation to plinth area. We note that rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) have limited application, only for the initial fixation of property tax on the basis of plinth area. Assessment under the Rules can only be on the basis of plinth area, in tune with the amended provisions of Section 233. The effect of the Rules is only that they stipulate a minimum enhancement of the tax payable, to the rate as per the previous assessment. In effect, if the rate of tax according to the assessment on the basis of plinth area is less, the minimum rate will be fixed as per the Rule, obviously to protect the interest of revenue. That cannot be considered as indirect reintroduction of the earlier basis of assessment, the annual value. Incorporating Rules to fix minimum and maximum limits are permitted by the provisions of the Act we have referred above. Hence the impugned Rules are well in tune with the Act. 13. If in any individual cases, the fresh assessment as per the Rules crosses the limits prescribed under the Rules or the relevant Government Orders, such assessments can be definitely questioned in accordance with law. In the result, we conclude that Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) are not ultra vires the Act. Hence, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, we conclude that Rules 9(4a) and 9(4c) are not ultra vires the Act. Hence, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appeal is allowed and the writ petition will stand dismissed.