JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Baruah, the learned Junior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the Notification bearing No. TMB/TD/TAX/2023-24/209 dated 03.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned Notification”) issued by the respondent No. 3 as well as the reassessment and fixation of municipal taxes on the basis of the impugned Notification and in the interim has sought for a direction that the impugned Notification be stayed and/or the respondents be directed not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 3. The petitioner admittedly is the owner of various properties and in that regard had obtained 136 holding numbers which were assessed by the Tinsukia Municipal Board i.e. the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Respondent Board”). 4. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have unreasonably and exorbitantly increased the annual value of the holdings without following the mandate of the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act of 1956”). It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the Respondent Board has imposed the tax, namely the Urban tax at the rate of 3%, which was not permissible in terms with the Act of 1956, more so, upon the Assam Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1969 being repealed by the Assam Repealing Act, 2022, which came into effect on 07.10.2022. 5. It is alleged that in the month of February 2023, the respondent No. 3 had issued a Notice dated 20.02.2023 whereby the citizens were intimated that a draft reassessment list with new rates of the Respondent Board has been published thereby inviting citizens to submit their claims and objections, if any, w.e.f. 21.02.2023 to 20.03.2023. It was also mentioned in the said Notice that the claims shall be heard by the designated officer of the Respondent Board and the final assessment list shall be sent to the Government for review as provided under Section 79 -E of the Act of 1956. 6. It was also mentioned in the said Notice that the claims shall be heard by the designated officer of the Respondent Board and the final assessment list shall be sent to the Government for review as provided under Section 79 -E of the Act of 1956. 6. The petitioner alleges that the said Notification was not widely published and it was only affixed to the Notice Board of the Respondent Board. Resultantly, the petitioner being unaware submitted a representation on 10.03.2023 requesting the Respondent Board to increase the time limit to 90 days from 30 days for filing claims/objections, and further to provide a copy of the draft reassessment list for the Ward Nos. 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 of the Respondent Board for verification and to submit the claims and objections. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent Board did not consider the said request, for which, the petitioner again made a request vide a communication dated 28.03.2023. 7. The petitioner further alleges that the Respondent Board, without providing the draft reassessment list, issued several notices to the petitioner in respect to the different holdings, including the notice dated 21.04.2023, whereby it was intimated to the petitioner that the Holding Taxes of the Respondent Board have been reassessed, and the newly assessed Holding Tax would be effective from 01.04.2023, and that from the financial year 2023-24, Holding Tax can be paid digitally. 8. The petitioner vide a communication dated 03.11.2023 requested the Respondent Board to provide the detailed calculation method/formula along with other factors which have been considered for calculation of the municipal tax. The petitioner thereupon received an e-mail on 24.11.2023 from the Respondent Board whereby the new tax calculation formula was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the communications submitted by the petitioner, without providing the draft reassessment list and conducting any proper verification by affording public hearing, the impugned Notification was issued on 03.05.2023, notifying the final assessment of the Holding Tax. The petitioner had denied that there was any public meeting held on 29.04.2023 as mentioned in the impugned Notification dated 03.05.2023. The petitioner was also issued a demand notice on 11.12.2023. 9. The petitioner had denied that there was any public meeting held on 29.04.2023 as mentioned in the impugned Notification dated 03.05.2023. The petitioner was also issued a demand notice on 11.12.2023. 9. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the Holding Tax was enhanced in the various Wards of the Respondent Board ranging from 197% to 6,349% which under no circumstances can be said to be reasonable, rational, and acceptable by the public, including the petitioner. The petitioner further has alleged that apart from revising the annual value of the holding, the respondents have also imposed an Urban Tax which the Respondent Board cannot realize in view of the repealing of the Assam Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1969, by the Assam Repealing Act, 2022. 10. On the basis of the above, the instant writ petition was filed, and this Court vide an order dated 18.12.2023 issued notice, but was not inclined to pass any interim order. However, vide an order dated 24.02.2025, this Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner. The said interim order has been extended from time to time. 11. It is also relevant to take note of that the petitioner had filed 2 (two) additional affidavits in the instant proceedings. In the additional affidavit filed on 24.07.2024, the petitioner brought on record a communication dated 10.03.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam and i/c Municipal Reform Cell, Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, wherein emphasis was placed upon Clause 5 of the said communication, wherein it was stipulated as under: “5. Rebate can be given to public so that the effective increase to the final property tax rate shall not be more than 25% of the last property tax collected depending upon the local conditions and requirements.” 12. It was the contention of the petitioner on the basis of the said communication dated 10.03.2023 that the determination of the annual value of the holdings by the Respondent Board is not only contrary to the said communication, but also unreasonable and exorbitant. 13. The second additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 06.02.2025, wherein the petitioner raised the issue that the respondent Nos. 13. The second additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 06.02.2025, wherein the petitioner raised the issue that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had exceeded their jurisdiction and have arbitrarily reassessed and fixed the municipal taxes without any statutory authority or sanction in law, and that the impugned Notification was contrary to the communication dated 10.03.2023. The petitioner had also brought on record a bill dated 09.12.2024, issued by the Chairman of the Respondent Board wherein an amount of Rs. 18,93,738.86/- was demanded from the petitioner. STAND TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENTS 14. The record reveals that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an affidavit-in-opposition through its Chairman. A perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition reveals that since 1975-76, the annual value of the holdings have not been assessed. A Notification was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of Assam, dated 28.06.2022, wherein taking into consideration the 15th Finance Commission's recommendation in its report for 2021-26, the urban local bodies were required to notify floor rates of property taxes and collection has to be in tandem with the growth rate of the State-owned GSDP growth and under such circumstances, in terms with the said Notification dated 28.06.2022 all Municipal Boards, (barring those whose last general assessment have not yet completed 5 years) in Assam were directed to carry out the exercise of revision of annual value of the holdings and prepare fresh assessment lists as per the procedure prescribed under Section 79 -A, 79-B, 79-C, 79-D, and 79-E of the Act of 1956. The operational part of the said Notification being relevant is reproduced herein under: “It is instructed that all the Municipal Boards (barring those whose last general assessment has not yet completed five years) in Assam shall carry out the exercise of revision of Annual Value of holdings and prepare fresh assessment lists as per procedures prescribed under Section 79 -A, 79-B, 79- C, 79-D and 79 E of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. While doing the exercise, the Municipal Boards will follow the following steps namely:- (1) Classification of holdings as per situation. While doing the exercise, the Municipal Boards will follow the following steps namely:- (1) Classification of holdings as per situation. (2) Calculation of Carpet area as per Section 79 -C. (3) Fixation of annual rental value and Annual value, while doing so the value will be arrived with reference to latest zonal value of land and for value of building the latest CPWD Schedule of Rates may be consulted in so far as these relates to buildings. The Boards are at liberty to fix a justified percentage over the PWD SOR (4) Determination of rates of tax as per Section 79 -D. (5) The exercise will be done as per approval of the Committee constituted under Section 79 -A(5) of the Act with Deputy Commissioner as Chairman. (6) The Chairman of the committee can requisition staff, as may be required, from other Departments for the purpose of this exercise. The rate of Tax determined shall be published by respective Municipal Board by issuing a public notice. A list of holdings shall be prepared based on the exercise which will also be published for information of Tax Payers by December 3 2022, The assessment so made shall be valid for a period of 5 years and shall be revised every five years under Section 79 .P. There would be continuous updating of the holdings based on future revision of land value and value of holdings.” 15. It further appears from the said affidavit-in-opposition that on the basis of the said Notification dated 28.06.2022, certain operational guidelines were also notified for revision of the property tax by the Urban Local Bodies. Immediately thereafter, on 30.06.2022, the Director, Municipal Administration, Assam had issued a communication to all Chairperson/Executive Officer of the Municipal Boards informing as regards the training program on assessment/reassessment of property tax of Urban Local Boards to the Master Trainers of the District Headquarter of the Urban Local Bodies which were completed successfully on 27.06.2022 and 28.06.2022. 16. On 16.07.2022, another Notification was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Housing and Urban Affairs stipulating the timelines for implementation of the various stages for revision of the assessment of property taxes in the Urban Local Body/Municipal Board areas and for strict adherence by the concerned District Level Committee constituted and the Municipal Boards. The timeline so provided in the said Notification is given in a chart which is reproduced herein under: Sl. No Action point Timeline 1 Notification of one ADC as Nodal Officer for Municipal Reforms related works. 25th July, 2022 2 1st meeting of District Level Committee 25th July, 2022 3 Notification of Principal Main Road, Main Road and other Road 5th August, 2022 4 Notice for Self-Assessment by Municipal Boards 10th August, 2022 5 Self-Assessment by public 10th August to 10th September, 2022 6 Assessment/Re-assessment by Ward- 10th wise teams September-15th November, 2022 7 Publication of Draft Assessment List 20th November, 2022 8 Notice for Claims and Objections on Assessment of property tax 20th November, 2022 9 Disposal of claims and objections 20th November to 20th December, 2022 10 Notice of publication of final assessment list 31st November, 2022 17. From the affidavit-in-opposition, it further reveals that pursuant to the Government Notification dated 28.06.2022, as per Section 79 - A(5) of the Act of 1956, a District Level Committee was constituted in respect to Tinsukia District under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia along with various members. This order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia on 06.07.2022 and the compositions of the said District Level Committee were: 1 The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia Chairman 2 The Chairman, Tinsukia Municipal Board, Tinsukia Member 3 The Circle Officer, Tinsukia Revenue Circle, Tinsukia Member 4 The Executive Engineer, PWD, Tinsukia/Doomdooma/Sadiya Territorial Road Division, Tinsukia Member 5 The Executive Engineer, PWD (Building) Tinsukia Territorial Division, Tinsukia Member 6 The Executive Engineer, Town & Country Planning, Tinsukia Member 7 The Vice-Chairman, Tinsukia Municipal Board, Tinsukia Member Secy. 18. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of Section 79 -A(5) of the Act of 1956, which stipulates that subject to the approval of the Committee, a Municipality may from time to time publish the list of Principal Main Roads and the Main Roads and if necessary modify the list as may be decided by the Committee. 19. 19. The Committee which was constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia vide the order dated 06.07.2022 had issued a Notice on 05.08.2022 informing all concerned that in terms with the provisions of Section 79 -A(5) of the Act of 1956, and with the due approval from the Committee constituted under the said Section, the various roads under the Respondent Board were classified as Principal Main Roads and Main Roads for the purpose of classification of the holdings under the provisions of A-(2) of the Act of 1956. It was also mentioned that all other roads not listed in the two classes, i.e., Principal Main Roads and Main Roads, shall be treated as other roads. Further to that, the Notice also stipulated that all owners/occupiers of all the holdings within the Respondent Board to furnish returns with all the details as required as per the format available in the Office of the Respondent Board under the provisions of Section 77 of the Act of 1956 and declare their holdings for the purpose of determining the annual value of the holding not later than 10.09.2022. It was also mentioned that those owners who fail to comply and file their returns shall attract the penalty and other consequences as per the provisions of (3) and (4) of the Act of 1956. 20. Annexure-9 to the affidavit-in-opposition shows that the District Information and Public Relation Officer, Tinsukia was intimated vide a communication dated 08.08.2022 by the respondent No. 3 for publishing the Notification dated 05.08.2022 in two daily newspapers i.e. the Assam Tribune, Dainik Janambhumi, and Dainik Purbudoy (Hindi) at an early date. The said Notification dated 05.08.2022 was accordingly published in the said newspapers. 21. The record further reveals that the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Housing and Urban Affairs Department had issued an Office Memorandum dated 06.02.2023 wherein certain points were directed to be considered by the Urban Local Bodies during the exercise of fixation of the new rate of taxes of the properties. Clauses 1 to 8 of the said Office Memorandum being relevant are reproduced herein under: “1. The existing Zonal Value of Land and CPWD Schedule of Rates (DSR) are to be considered for calculation of Annual Rental Value (ARV). The Boards are at liberty to justify a fixed percentage of subsidy over the total value of land and building. 2. Clauses 1 to 8 of the said Office Memorandum being relevant are reproduced herein under: “1. The existing Zonal Value of Land and CPWD Schedule of Rates (DSR) are to be considered for calculation of Annual Rental Value (ARV). The Boards are at liberty to justify a fixed percentage of subsidy over the total value of land and building. 2. To determine the Annual Rental Value (ARV) of the property, the Boards will follow the formula fixed in the earlier "Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 i.e. 7.5% of the total Value of Land and Building. The Board may however fix ARV lower or higher than the value of 7.5% of the land and building value on justified grounds. The Boards may determine the rental value for categories of buildings u/s 79-C of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. 3. The new rate of taxes shall be determined by the concerned Municipal Board in consultation with relevant stake holder/ local representative and the operational guidelines issued vide UDD(M) 136/2022/18 Dtd. 28-06-2022. While fixing the rate of taxes, the Municipal Boards shall consider the need for augmentation of resources to bridge the deficit. The new rate of taxes shall be published by respective Municipal Boards by issuing public notice u/s 79-F of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. 4. The Municipal Boards shall publish the draft Assessment List with revised valuation of properties for claims & objections. The list shall include details of property captured during the assessment such as Name of Property Holder, Name & Type of Road, Plot area, plinth area, number of floors, type of construction, Use of the Building, Tax payable etc. 5. The citizens shall be offered a period of one month to lodge their claims &objections as provided u/s 83 of the Act. Claims so received shall be heard by the officers as may be nominated by the respective Municipal Boards. After disposal of claims & Objections the final assessment list shall be sent to Govt. for review as provided u/s 79-E of Assam Municipal Act, 1956. 6. After review of the Govt., in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, the Municipal Board shall publish the final Assessment list by issuing a public notice. 7. The new rate of taxes shall come into force from 01-04-2023, which shall remain valid for a period of five years, i.e. till 31-03-2028. 8. 6. After review of the Govt., in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, the Municipal Board shall publish the final Assessment list by issuing a public notice. 7. The new rate of taxes shall come into force from 01-04-2023, which shall remain valid for a period of five years, i.e. till 31-03-2028. 8. The entire exercise has to be completed within 20-03-2023.” 22. At this stage, it may be pertinent to take note of that in pursuance to the communication dated 05.08.2022, the petitioner submitted its self-declaration as would be seen from Annexure-R13 to the affidavit-in-opposition. It is also very pertinent to take note of that at paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the Respondent Board had stated that the property tax has been calculated as per the Proposed Tax Calculator from the dedicated portal under the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Government of Assam and the details have been given in Annexure-R2 to the said affidavit-in-opposition. 23. The records further reveals that the draft reassessment list was published on 20.02.2023. It is also stated that the public meeting was convened on 29.04.2023 and thereupon on 03.05.2023, the impugned Notification was issued. 24. No affidavit-in-reply was filed against the said affidavit-in-opposition. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES. 25. Mr. B. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the manner in which the annual rental value of the holdings has been assessed is unreasonable and exorbitant. In that regard, the learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the chart at paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition and submitted that the enhanced rate in the various Wards under the Respondent Board has been enhanced by 197% to 6,349%. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is no basis in that regard. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the annual value of the holding has not been arrived at in terms with Section 79 and 79A of the Act of 1956, inasmuch as the approval of the Committee which was constituted in terms with the Notification dated 06.07.2022 was not taken. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the annual value of the holding has not been arrived at in terms with Section 79 and 79A of the Act of 1956, inasmuch as the approval of the Committee which was constituted in terms with the Notification dated 06.07.2022 was not taken. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that when the statute mandates that the procedure for fixation of the annual value of the holding is to be carried out in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. 26. The learned Senior Counsel further drawing the attention to Section 68 of the Act of 1956 submitted that the Respondent Board is empowered to impose within the limits of the said Board, the various taxes, fees, and tolls. Drawing the attention of this Court to Clauses (a) to (o) of Sub-Section 1 of of the Act of 1956, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Urban Tax cannot be imposed upon under the provisions of the Act of 1956. 27. The learned Senior Counsel drawing the attention of this Court to Section 79 -F of the Act of 1956 submitted that the rate of tax determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act has to be published by issuance of a public notice within a period of 3 months from the date of coming into effect of the Assam Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2012. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that this determination shall be valid for a period of 5 years and upon expiration of the said 5 years, new determination of rate of taxes shall take place and shall be published in the same manner as stipulated in -F of the Act of 1956. 28. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that steps have been taken for fixation of the rate of tax in the year 2022 without issuance of a public notice as is required under Section 79 (ii) of the Act of 1956, which stipulates that the publication of such notice shall be in one vernacular and in one English daily newspaper predominantly in circulation in the notified area of the Municipality. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that in absence of the said being not done, the fixation of the Annual Value of the Holdings is not permissible. 29. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that in absence of the said being not done, the fixation of the Annual Value of the Holdings is not permissible. 29. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that though Urban Tax was earlier realized, the same was realized in terms with the Assam Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1969. The said Act was repealed by the Assam Repealing Act, 2022, and under such circumstances, the question of imposition of Urban Tax does not arise. It is under such circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that as the impugned Notification dated 03.05.2023 is contrary to the Act of 1956 as well as the Assam Repealing Act, 2022, the same is required to be interfered with. 30. In addition to above, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the fixation of the annual value of the holding being unreasonable, irrational, and exorbitant the same does not satisfy the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and as such, the same is required to be interfered with. 31. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the various demands so made by the Respondent Authorities, more particularly, the demand notice dated 09.12.2024 is required to be interfered with. 32. Further to the above, the learned Senior Counsel also referring to the communication dated 10.03.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, i/c Municipal Reform Cell, submitted that the final property tax rate cannot exceed more than 25% of the last property tax collected and it being a direction from the Government of Assam, the Respondent Board is bound by the said communication dated 10.03.2023. 33. Per contra, Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that since 1975- 76 there was no reassessment to the annual value of the holding, though the value of the land as well as the buildings have increased manifold. The learned Standing Counsel drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition submitted that the enhancement of the annual value of the holdings of the petitioner is quite obvious in consideration of the revised land values by the State Revenue Department as well as the alteration and modification in the nature of the construction of the petitioner’s property which the petitioner had willfully concealed. The learned Standing Counsel referred to the chart to paragraph No. 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition and submitted that out of 136 holdings of the petitioner, 61 holdings were assessed less than Rs. 50/- per quarter which is to say around 50% of their property were under Rs. 50/- per quarter, though those properties are situated in the prime locations of Tinsukia. 34. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the annual value of the holdings have been assessed in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 06.02.2023 which stipulates that the existing zonal value of the land and the CPWD Schedule of Rates are to be considered for calculation of the Annual Rental Value (ARV). In addition to that, the learned Standing Counsel has also referred to Annexure-R-2, wherein the calculation is provided in the dedicated portal under the Directorate of Municipal Administration. He therefore submitted that taking into account that for the last 48 years there has been no reassessment of the annual value of the holdings, it cannot be said that the enhancement which has been made is unreasonable, irrational or exorbitant. 35. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the revision of the annual rental value of the holdings was recommended by the 15th Finance Commission as well as the directions issued by the Government of Assam vide the Notification dated 28.06.2022. The learned Standing Counsel further referring to the Notification dated 28.06.2022 as well as the operational guidelines enclosed therein submitted that each of the steps as given in the operational guidelines have been adhered to. Further to that, the learned Standing Counsel also referred to the Notification dated 16.07.2022 and the timeline prescribed therein. In addition to that, the learned Standing Counsel further referring to the order dated 06.07.2022 submitted that the District Level Committee was constituted in terms with Section 79 -A(5) of the Act of 1956 and the said Committee duly approved the various roads under the Respondent Board by classifying them as Principal Main Roads and Main Roads as well as other roads. He therefore submitted that the submissions so made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there was no approval of the Committee so constituted in terms of -A(5) of the Act of 1956 does not hold water in view of the Notice dated 05.08.2022. He therefore submitted that the submissions so made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there was no approval of the Committee so constituted in terms of -A(5) of the Act of 1956 does not hold water in view of the Notice dated 05.08.2022. He further submitted that the draft reassessment lists of the holdings were prepared and the same were duly published calling for objections and upon conducting a public hearing on 29.04.2023, the Assessment list was published vide the impugned Notification dated 03.05.2023. 36. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also submitted that prior to the revision being carried out vide the impugned Notification dated 03.05.2023, the rate of property tax was 14% on the annual value which included house tax at 6% on annual value, latrine tax at 3% on annual value, light tax at 2% on annual value and Urban Tax at 3% on the annual value. He further submitted that pursuant to the 4th Board's General Meeting held on 01.03.2023, the tax has been simplified inasmuch as the Respondent Board abolished the house tax at 6%, latrine tax at 3%, and light tax at 2%, and in total imposed a total property tax of 6% on the annual value which consists of Holding Tax at 3% on annual value and Urban Tax at 3% on the annual value. The learned Standing Counsel therefore submitted that it is not for the first time that the Urban Tax has been imposed, and the Urban Tax was earlier also imposed, and the petitioner had duly paid the same, and therefore the petitioner now cannot raise an objection as regards the imposition of the Urban Tax. 37. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the instant writ petition is an abuse of the process of the Court and in order to not make payment of the dues to which the petitioner is liable to, the instant writ petition has been filed. It is under such circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the instant writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION. 38. The Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given an anxious consideration to the materials on record including the records which were produced before this Court. 39. It is under such circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the instant writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION. 38. The Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given an anxious consideration to the materials on record including the records which were produced before this Court. 39. At the outset, it is very pertinent to take note of that during the course of the hearing, an instruction was placed by Mr. S.R. Baruah, the learned Junior Government Advocate, which was issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. This instruction is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. The instruction which kept on record and marked with the letter “X” is of importance as it encloses the Minutes of the Meeting held on 21.08.2025 at 1:30 PM in the office chamber of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. In these Minutes, a discussion took place as regards communication dated 10.03.2023 upon which the petitioner places reliance by way of the additional affidavits. The Minutes of the Meeting, more particularly, the contents of the Minutes of the Meeting are relevant, and as such, the same is reproduced herein under: “Minutes of the meeting held on 21/08/2025 at 1:30 PM in the office chamber of Shri Richand Ahmed, Secretary to the Government of Assam, DoHUA regarding Order No. DMA.162/2022/143 dated 10 th March, 2023. Members present: As per Annexure-A The meeting was chaired by Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, DoHUA. He welcomed the members present, Director, Municipal Administration, Assam explained the purpose of the meeting. The agenda of the meeting was to clarify the matter regarding the aforesaid Order, in pursuance of the order dated 16 th July, 2025, passed in WP(C) 7345/2023 (M/S Tinsukia Development Corporation Ltd. vs. The State of Assam & Ors) in continuation of the previous meeting held on 7 th August, 2025. The Executive Officer, Dr. Nayan Jyoti Nath, attended the meeting in representation of Tinsukia Municipal Board, since the petitioner is a Tinsukia-based company and the dispute is connected therewith. Dr Nayan Jyoti Nath explained that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition regarding the property tax reassessment by the Tinsukia Municipal Board in 2023. The Executive Officer, Dr. Nayan Jyoti Nath, attended the meeting in representation of Tinsukia Municipal Board, since the petitioner is a Tinsukia-based company and the dispute is connected therewith. Dr Nayan Jyoti Nath explained that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition regarding the property tax reassessment by the Tinsukia Municipal Board in 2023. The petitioner assailed in their petition that the tax enhancement by reassessment is exorbitant and arbitrary and enhanced contrary to the provisions of the above order dated 10.03.2023 on point 5 of the order provides which slates that "Rebate can be given to the public so that the effective increase to the final property tax rate shall not be than 25% of the last property collected, depending upon the local conditions and requirements." The matter was discussed at length and after a threadbare discussion, it was observed that the reading of the impugned order is ambiguous in relation to the rest of the contents of the said order. 1. The ambiguity in the impugned Notification shall be dealt with by repeal/revocation or by issuing a corrigendum in this regard. 2. Point 5 in the order No. DMA.162/2022/143 dated 10th March 2023, may be rephrased and aligned with the preceding four points, along with the office memorandum issued on 6 th February, 2023. Point 5 may be read as: "Rebate can be given to the public, not exceeding 25%, so that the effective increase to the final property tax is not less than the last property tax collected, depending upon the local conditions and requirements." The meeting ended with a vote of thanks from the chair.” 40. From the above, it is apparent that it was decided that Point 5 of the communication dated 10.03.2023, upon which the petitioner had emphasized be read as “rebate can be given to the public, not exceeding 25%, so that the effective increase to the final property tax is not less than the last property tax collected, depending upon the local conditions and requirements”. Therefore, the communication dated 10.03.2023, in view of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 21.08.2025 completely changes the complexion of the contention so made by the petitioner that the increase in the final property tax cannot exceed 25% of the last property tax collected. This therefore settles the said issue. 41. Therefore, the communication dated 10.03.2023, in view of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 21.08.2025 completely changes the complexion of the contention so made by the petitioner that the increase in the final property tax cannot exceed 25% of the last property tax collected. This therefore settles the said issue. 41. The materials on record clearly show that since 1975-76, there had been no determination of the annual value of the holdings which were assessed to the Respondent Board. During this period of 48 years, there is no iota of any doubt which the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also accepts that the values of the properties have increased manifold. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is categorically mentioned that the State of Assam in the Revenue Department have also increased the land value on various occasions. There is no denial to the said aspect. This Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that the value of the property have increased. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner has not challenged the Notification and the Office Memorandum dated 28.06.2022 and 06.02.2023 respectively which stipulated that the existing zonal value of the land and the CPWD schedule of rates are to be considered for calculation of the annual rental value. It is also seen that the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Assam has a proposed tax calculator in its dedicated portal which provides as to how the annual rental value is to be assessed. It is the opinion of this Court that taking into account the Notification and the Office Memorandum dated 28.06.2022 and 06.02.2023 respectively read with the proposed tax calculator as provided in the dedicated portal under the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Assam and the fact that since the last 48 years there has been no redetermination of the annual value of the holding, the enhancement of the annual value of the holding cannot be said to be exorbitant, irrational or unreasonable. 42. This Court has also taken into consideration the Notice dated 05.08.2022 which also clearly mentions that with the approval of the Committee so constituted in terms with Section 79 -A(5), the Respondent Board had published the list of Principal Main Roads and Main Roads. Therefore, there is no infraction to -A(5) as alleged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 43. Therefore, there is no infraction to -A(5) as alleged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 43. Section 68 of the Act of 1956 empowers the Respondent Board to impose within its limits the various taxes. It includes taxes such as Holding Tax, Water Tax, Lighting Tax, Latrine Tax, Drainage Tax. Holding tax, Water tax, Lighting Tax and Latrine Tax have a correlation with the annual value of the holdings, whereas the drainage tax is in respect when a system of drainage has been introduced. of the Act of 1956, however, does not confer any power upon the Respondent Board to impose Urban Tax. 44. At this stage, if this Court takes note of the Assam Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1969 it would show that in terms with Section 3 of the said Act of 1969, the Municipal Board or the Town Committee are empowered to collect urban immovable property tax on all lands and buildings situated within the area of such Municipal Board or Town Committee, at the rate of 3% of the annual value of the land and building. The Assam Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1969, however, was repealed by the Assam Repealing Act, 2022, which came into effect on 07.10.2022. Therefore, w.e.f. 07.10.2022, the Town Committee as well as the Municipal Bodies cannot impose Urban Tax. 45. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court duly takes note of the affidavit-in-opposition filed, it would be show that prior to the exercise of reassessment of the holdings being carried out which was initiated vide the Notification dated 28.06.2022, the total property tax was 14% of the annual value of the holdings which included house tax, latrine tax, light tax, and Urban Tax. The Respondent Board in its 4th Board's General Meeting held on 01.03.2023 unanimously resolved that they would abolish the house tax at the rate of 6%, latrine tax at the rate of 3%, and light tax at the rate of 2%, and instead impose Holding Tax at 3% on the annual value of the holdings and Urban Tax at 3% on the annual value of the holdings. 46. 46. It is on the basis thereof, it is seen in the impugned Notification dated 03.05.2023, at Clause No. 5, it is mentioned that for both residential and commercial establishment, rate of Holding Tax is 3% and Urban Tax is 3% and hence total property tax shall be fixed at 6% (Holding Tax 3% + Urban Tax 3%). It is the opinion of this Court that though the Respondent Board has the power to impose the Holding Tax at the rate of 3% in terms with Section 68 , but in view of the repealing of the Assam Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1969 by the Assam Repealing Act, 2022, the Respondent Board cannot impose Urban Tax at the rate of 3%. Therefore, the imposition of the Urban Tax vide the Notification dated 03.05.2023 is required to be interfered with to that extent. 47. Let this Court now deal with the contention raised by the petitioner as regards violation to Section 79 -F of the Act of 1956. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said provision stipulates that determination of rates of taxes shall take place and shall be published in the same manner as stipulated in the said Section. For the purpose of deciding the said contention, this Court finds it relevant to take note of -F of the Act of 1956. The said provision is reproduced herein below: “ 79-F. Determination of taxes .- The rate of taxes determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall be published by the respective Municipal Board/Town Committee by issuing a public notice within a period of three months from the date of coming into force of the Assam Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2012. This determination shall remain valid for a period of five years. At the expiration of very five years. At the expiration of very five years new determination of rate of taxes shall take place and shall be published in the same manner as stipulated in this Section. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Section the word “publish” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it under Section 79 (ii).” 48. It is of importance to take note of that the above quoted provision was brought within the Act of 1956 vide the Assam Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2011 w.e.f. 25.05.2011. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Section the word “publish” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it under Section 79 (ii).” 48. It is of importance to take note of that the above quoted provision was brought within the Act of 1956 vide the Assam Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2011 w.e.f. 25.05.2011. It is pertinent to observe that the said provision relates to the rate of taxes which shall remain valid for a period of 5 (five) years and thereupon a fresh exercise would be carried out. It is of importance that vide the impugned Notification the rate of taxes were determined. The said aspect has been duly published as per Section 79 (ii) of the Act of 1956. The said determination would be prospective w.e.f. 01.04.2023. Under such circumstances, the contention so made appears to be misconceived. 49. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The reassessment of the annual value of the holdings by the Respondent Board is not unreasonable, irrational or exorbitant. It is in consonance with the present value of the land and the buildings and in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 06.02.2023. Under such circumstances, the question of interference with the reassessment of the annual value of the holdings by the Respondent Board does not arise. (ii) The Respondent Board in view of the repealing of the Assam Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1969 by the Assam Repealing Act, 2022, cannot impose Urban Tax. Accordingly, the impugned Notification dated 03.05.2023, insofar as imposition of the Urban Tax at the rate of 3% on the annual value of the holdings is interfered with. It is however clarified that the impugned Notification dated 03.05.2023 imposing Holding Tax at the rate of 3% is not interfered with. (iii) This Court further observes that in view of the above declaration that the Respondent Board cannot impose Urban Tax which is fixed at the rate of 3%, the Respondent Board shall now be required to re-compute the liability of the petitioner. The Demand Notice dated 09.12.2024 shall have to be either modified or a fresh Demand Notice be issued as per the observations and findings made herein above. The said be carried out forthwith. (iv) Interim order stands vacated. (v) The records so produced be returned to Mr. The Demand Notice dated 09.12.2024 shall have to be either modified or a fresh Demand Notice be issued as per the observations and findings made herein above. The said be carried out forthwith. (iv) Interim order stands vacated. (v) The records so produced be returned to Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Standing Counsel by the Court Master of this Court. (vi) No costs.