Municipal property tax delegation survives without a maximum rate where statutory controls exist and a single assessment-book remains valid.

Municipal taxation power to fix and levy property tax was upheld where the statute supplied policy, purpose, budgeting requirements, municipal fund controls and governmental supervision, so the absence of an express maximum rate did not by itself make the delegation excessive or unconstitutional. The assessment for the year was also sustained because the Taxation Rules allowed the Commissioner to maintain either one assessment-book or separate ward assessment-books; ward-wise books were not mandatory. Authentication under the rules was treated as having limited evidentiary function and did not affect accrual of tax liability, so the bills and demand notices remained valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delegation of power to fix and levy property tax under the municipal statute, despite the absence of a maximum rate, was excessive and unconstitutional. (ii) Whether the assessment made for the relevant year was invalid because the Commissioner maintained a single assessment-book instead of ward assessment-books and because authentication under the Taxation Rules was not done in the manner contended for.

Issue (i): Whether the delegation of power to fix and levy property tax under the municipal statute, despite the absence of a maximum rate, was excessive and unconstitutional.

Analysis: The taxing power was confined to the purposes of the Act and was embedded in a scheme of fiscal controls. The statute required annual budgeting, application of municipal funds to purposes of the Act, governmental supervision over rules, and decision by an elected municipal body responsible to the public. The absence of an express maximum rate did not by itself destroy the delegation where the statute supplied policy, purpose, and practical checks on exercise of the power.

Conclusion: The delegation was not excessive or unconstitutional, and this contention failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment made for the relevant year was invalid because the Commissioner maintained a single assessment-book instead of ward assessment-books and because authentication under the Taxation Rules was not done in the manner contended for.

Analysis: The scheme of the Taxation Rules showed that the Commissioner had discretion to maintain either one assessment-book or separate ward assessment-books. The references to ward assessment-books in certain rules could not be read as making ward-wise books mandatory, because that would create internal inconsistencies and defeat the object of the rules. Authentication under the rules served a limited evidentiary function and did not control the accrual of liability to tax. The entries made under the relevant rule, read with the notice and complaint procedure, validly supported levy and demand.

Conclusion: The assessment-book was valid, and the bills and demand notices could not be challenged on the ground that only one assessment-book was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme was upheld in substance, and the property tax demand for the assessment year in question remained enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: In a municipal taxation statute, the absence of an express maximum rate does not invalidate delegation where the Act itself supplies policy, purpose, and effective financial and administrative controls; and a rule framed to permit either one assessment-book or ward assessment-books cannot be construed to make ward-wise books mandatory or to defeat levy on the basis of a single assessment-book.

---