The decree appealed from, dismissed on final hearing a bill of complaint which sought to enjoin the collection of personal property taxes on the ground that the assessment roll is invalid, because of illegal valuations of personal property for assessment purposes and because much personal property of large values subject to taxation was intentionally not assessed.

Primarily it should be determined whether the appellant is entitled to the relief he prays when he did not institute this suit until June 29, 1933, when the assessment roll for 1932 was completed in 1932 and taxes thereon have been collectable since November 1, 1932, and when the complainant could have sought relief, if entitled to it, by application to the administrative taxing officials or to the courts in appropriate procedure before his lawful taxes which under the statute are a continuing lien upon his property until the lawful taxes are paid in full, had become long past due and after other taxpayers had paid their taxes as' assessed on the tax roll which is here sought to have decreed void in its entirety and after the statutory tax collection period for the taxes of 1932 had passed.

Where tax assessments are unauthorized and void they may be enjoined at any time. As where national banks and their stock shares are assessed in violation of the Acts of *187Congress permitting national banks and their stock shares to be taxed upon prescribed conditions, Roberts v. American National Bank, 97 Fla. 411, 121 So. 554; or where a tax levy as made is' not authorized by a valid law; or where though a tax levy be duly authorized by law, the illegality of the tax roll because of affirmative wrongdoing by the taxing officials, and not mere incorrectness or 'specific instances of unfairness in the assessment as made, is duly shown. There may be other instances in which a tax levy is void and relief from it may be had at any time when the right to redress has not been waived or otherwise lost.

But where a tax assessment is voidable and not per se void as where it is made in good -faith but is irregular or unfair, the taxpayer must move in due time and must make a full and clear showing of right to appropriate relief.

The law presumes that taxing officials faithfully perform their official duties; and when the correctness of their official acts is challenged, the burden of proper allegation and sufficient proof is upon the complaining party. Camp Phosphate Co. v. Allen, 77 Fla. 341, 81 So. 503; City of Tampa v. Palmer, 89 Fla. 514, 105 So. 115.

While equity will give appropriate relief against illegality or intentional or systematic gross injustice in imposing taxes, it will not afford immunity from taxation merely because there may be some inequality in assessments. • The duty to bear a just share of taxation, justice to other taxpayers, and the requirements of government make it inequitable to give relief from all taxátion because there may be some inequality in an assessment roll, which if it in fact existed, could have been' remedied by pursuing administrative or other processes in time for proper assessments to be made, so that, as contemplated by law, all may appropriately share *188tax burdens that are necessary to efficient government for the protection of the personal and property rights of all. Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 Sou. Rep. 439 (opinion filed November 13, 1933, at the present term) ; First Trust Co. v. Souder, 112 Fla. 393, 150 Sou. Rep. 590 (opinion filed October 18, 1933).

“The law contemplates that a wide discretion be accorded to the tax assessor in the valuation of property for the purpose of taxation. In the absence of a clear and positive showing of fraud or of an illegal act or of an abuse of discretion rendering an assessment authorized by law so arbitrary and discriminating as to amount to a fraud upon a taxpayer or to a denial of the equal protection of the law, the courts will not in general control the discretion of the tax assessor in making valuations for taxing purposes. The burdens of taxation cannot be made exactly equal.” German-American Lumber Co., et al., v. Barbee, 59 Fla. 493, H. N. 1, 52 So. 292. See also Harjim, Inc., v. Owens, 64 Fed. (2nd) 306.

The Constitution provides that “there shall be exempt from taxation to the head of a family residing in this State, household goods and personal effects to the value of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars.” Section 11, Article IX, adopted at the general election of 1924. Page 483, Acts of 1923.

The organic provision means that in making assessments of pérsonal property for taxation the head of a family residing in this State shall be allowed an exemption of “household goods and personal effects to the value of five hundred dollars,” such value of $500.00 to be deducted from the total assessable value of the household goods and personal effects of the head of a family residing in this State. For example, if the head of a family residing in *189this State has “household goods and personal effects” of the value of $1,200.00 and the assessment value is 50 per cent thereof or $600.00, the exempt value of $500.00 is to be deducted from the $600.00 assessment value, leaving the remainder of $100.00 to be assessed for taxation.

The bill of complaint contains allegations that required a response if the complainant is not in laches, therefore the court will not be held in error for denying the motion to dismiss the bill of complaint for insufficiency as a pleading.

State and county tax levies had been duly authorized by law. The proper officials made and approved the assessments and the complainant did not duly complain of the alleged improper assessments as made when he should have done so in justice to all concerned.

• The evidence does not clearly show as against the findings of the chancellor that affirmative acts of wrongdoing by the taxing officials were of such a nature as' to invalidate the tax roll; and while the complainant without proper predicate therefor does pray that the “court will fix and determine the liability of the plaintiff; if any, with reference to his personal taxes for 1932” he did not pay or offer to pay the amount of taxes that constitute a valid lien upon the property as was done and approved in L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Amos, 98 Fla. 350, 123 So. 745. The decree appealed from is affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Brown, J., not participating because of illness.

On Petition for Rehearing.

In this State liability for ad valorem taxes does not depend upon a proper assessment of parr ticular property or of all taxable property.

*190The Constitution commands the Legislature to provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation on tangible property, and to prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation of all property, both real and personal, excepting such property as may be exempted by law for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes. Section 1, Article IX, as amended in 1924. See also Section 9, Article IX; Section 16, Article XVI; Sections 897 (697), 898, 899, 903, 1704; 1706, Compiled General Laws.

The statutes provide that all real and personal property in this State, not expressly exempted therefrom, shall be subject to taxation in the manner provided by law. Section 893 (694), Compiled General Laws. All real and personal property shall be subject to taxation on the first day of January of each year, and this statute shall create a lien upon such property for the purposes thereof superior to all others. Section 896 (696), Compiled General Laws.

“All taxes imposed pursuant to the Constitution and laws of this State shall be a first lien superior to all other liens on any property against which such taxes have been assessed which shall continue in force and effect until discharged by payment, and no act of omission or commission on the part of any officer shall operate to defeat the payment of said taxes; but any such acts of omission or commission may be corrected at any time by the officer or party responsible for the same in like manner as is now or may hereafter be provided by law for performing such acts in the first place, and when so corrected they shall be construed as valid ab initio and shall in no way affect any process provided by law for the enforcement of the collection of any such-tax. All owners of property shall be held to know that taxes are due and payable thereon annually, and are hereby *191charged with the duty of ascertaining the amount of such tax and paying the same before the first day of April of each year; all provisions of law now existing or which may be hereafter enacted relating to the assessment and collection of revenue (unless otherwise specifically so declared) shall be deemed and held to be directory only, designed for the orderly arrangement of records and procedure of officers in enforcing the revenue laws of the State and not primarily for the protection or benefit of the taxpayer; and no assessment, and no sale or conveyance of real or personal property for non-payment of taxes shall be held invalid except upon proof that the property was not subject to taxation, or that the taxes had been paid previous to sale, or that the property had been redeemed prior to the execution and delivery of deed based upon certificate issued for non-payment of taxes.” Section 1, Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929.

“The assessment of personal property shall be made separate from the assessment of real estate, but personal property shall be responsible for the taxes on real estate, and real estate shall be responsible for taxes on personal property.” Section 913 (711), Compiled General Laws.

“It is hereby made the duty of every person owning or having the control, management, custody, direction, supervision or agency of property of whatsoever character that is subject to taxation under the laws of this State, to return the same for taxation to the county assessor of taxes in the proper county, or to other proper officer, on or before the first day of April of each and every year.” Section 917 (715), Compiled General Laws.

“All personal estate liable to taxation, the value of which shall not have been specified under oath as aforesaid, shall be estimated by the county assessor of taxes at its *192true cash value, according to his best judgment and information.” Section 919 (717), Compiled General Laws.

Whether the complainant’s property .was duly assessed or not, it was subject to the statutory lien for all ad valorem taxes that were lawfully collectable against the property; and it was the duty of the complainant to make due return of his property for taxation. If complainant duly made his tax return and discovered taxable property of others was not being duly assessed for taxation, with the result that his taxes would thereby be not to a trifling degree but substantially increased, his remedy was upon proper allegations and proofs in an appropriate tribunal, judicial or executive, to require the assessing officers to do their duty. See Liggett Co. v. Lee, Comptroller, 288 U. S. 517 (text 540), 53 Sup. Ct. 481, 77 L. Ed. 929, 85 A. L. R. 699. It was not complainant’s privilege to merely call attention of taxing officers to asserted illegal omissions of property from the assessment rolls, and to take no action to enforce his asserted rights until the period for paying taxes had about expired. There was' a statutory lien upon his property for all lawful taxes whether properly assessed or not; and even if judicial relief can be had after the period for voluntary payment of taxes had passed, the complainant should show what amount of taxes is lawfully payable and tender it in proper proceedings.

“The purpose of the Statute in requiring property to be assessed at its full cash value is to secure uniformity and equality of burden upon all property in the State as contemplated by the Constitution; and where all taxable property has been assessed on a basis of 50 per cent of its true cash value the purpose- of the constitutional provision has' not been defeated, and such infraction of the Statute affords *193no ground for a court of equity to declare the assessment void.” Camp Phosphate Co. v. Allen, 77 Fla. 341.

In this case the taxing unit is the county; and if all taxable property in the county-is assessed at the same percentage of its true cash value and such assessment operates to “secure a just valuation of all property” for taxation, within the meaning of the Constitution, the court will not adjudge the assessment to be void, there being no showing by proper parties that the rule of valuation adopted and' applied throughout the county would be illegal if not uniformly applied in a larger taxing unit which includes' the county.

Rehearing denied.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Brown, J., absent and not participating because of illness.