Municipal valuation must follow the statute: courts cannot direct a fresh valuation themselves after cancellation.

A municipal valuation statute that assigns annual value assessment to the Corporation does not permit a court to make a fresh valuation itself after the original valuation is cancelled. Cancellation of the valuation ends the original assessment; the statutory mechanism then depends on fresh valuation by the Corporation within the prescribed time, not on a court-directed substitute valuation. Revised valuation applies only where an existing valuation is modified, and cannot be used to authorise a new valuation by the court. The majority therefore treated the High Court's remand as contrary to the statute, while the dissent would have upheld remand for ascertainment of annual value under the correct provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could remand the matter to the Small Causes Court to make a fresh valuation itself after the Corporation's valuation was cancelled. (ii) Whether the post-cancellation procedure was governed by the provision for revised valuation or by the provision permitting a fresh valuation by the Corporation only.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could remand the matter to the Small Causes Court to make a fresh valuation itself after the Corporation's valuation was cancelled.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the annual value to be made by the Corporation in the manner prescribed by the Act. A court-made valuation would not itself create the statutory liability for rates. The order of remand therefore attempted to confer on the court a function which the Act did not authorise. The cancellation of the original valuation did not convert the appellate process into a proceeding for independent valuation by the court, and the supposed inherent power could not be used to create a procedure contrary to the Act.

Conclusion: The remand order was without legal authority and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the post-cancellation procedure was governed by the provision for revised valuation or by the provision permitting a fresh valuation by the Corporation only.

Analysis: A revised valuation presupposes retention of the original valuation with modifications, whereas a cancelled valuation ceases to exist. Where the valuation is set aside for irregularity, the Act contemplates a fresh valuation by the Corporation during the period allowed by the statute. The provision dealing with revised valuation does not authorise the court to substitute its own fresh valuation, and the statutory time limit for a fresh valuation by the Corporation could not be displaced by judicial convenience.

Conclusion: The case fell within the statutory mechanism for fresh valuation by the Corporation and not within a court-directed fresh valuation.

Final Conclusion: The majority held that the High Court's remand direction was contrary to the municipal statute and the appeals succeeded, while the dissent would have sustained a remand to the Small Causes Court for ascertainment of annual value under the correct clause.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a valuation statute entrusts valuation to the assessing authority and separately provides for revision or fresh valuation in defined contingencies, an appellate court cannot, by invoking inherent power, direct the subordinate court to make a new valuation itself if the statute does not confer that function on the court.

---