Property tax assessment list must be authenticated within the official year; limitation runs from enforcement of the demand.

Under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, an assessment list for property tax became operative only when authenticated within the relevant official year, because the statutory scheme treated authentication as completing the assessment process and fixing liability for that year. Authentication after the year's expiry did not validly impose revised tax rates, leaving the assessment list void and inoperative against rate-payers. On limitation, a challenge to a void levy accrued when the municipality sought to recover tax on the basis of that list; absent proof of when demand notices were issued or payments made, the municipality failed to show that the suit was filed beyond the six-month limit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an assessment list under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 had to be authenticated within the official year in order to validly fasten liability for property tax at the revised rates; (ii) whether the suit challenging the levy was barred by limitation under section 206A of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925.

Issue (i): Whether an assessment list under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 had to be authenticated within the official year in order to validly fasten liability for property tax at the revised rates.

Analysis: The scheme of sections 78 to 82 and 84 showed that the assessment process for property tax was completed only upon authentication of the assessment list. The list became effective from the beginning of the official year for which it was prepared, and section 82 indicated by parity that entries affecting liability had to be made during the currency of the relevant year. Section 84 also proceeded on the basis that an authenticated list would exist by the close of the official year so that it could be adopted for the next year. The later insertion of section 84A reinforced the same legislative understanding by prescribing an outer limit within the official year for authentication.

Conclusion: Authentication after the expiry of the official year did not validly levy the tax for that year, and the assessment list was void and inoperative against the rate-payers.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit challenging the levy was barred by limitation under section 206A of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925.

Analysis: A void and inoperative assessment list could be ignored as a nullity. The cause of action for the rate-payers arose only when the municipality sought to recover tax from them on the strength of that list, because only then was it necessary to challenge the levy to resist the demand. In the absence of material showing when such demands were issued or when payments were made, the municipality failed to establish that the suit was filed beyond six months from accrual of the cause of action.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed, and the suit was not shown to be time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme required timely authentication within the relevant official year, and the challenge to the levy was maintainable; the appeal therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, an assessment list intended to levy property tax for an official year becomes operative only when authenticated within that official year, and limitation for a challenge to such levy runs from the accrual of a real cause of action arising upon enforcement of the demand.

---