Mandatory municipal tax notice rules and finality of prior assessments control house-tax disputes under the Delhi Act.

Mandatory notice and service requirements under sections 124 and 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act govern municipal house-tax assessment, and non-compliance renders the demand invalid where service is not effected on the owner at the premises. The text also states that each assessment year is separate, so an appeal against a later year's demand cannot reopen earlier assessment years that have already attained finality. It further notes that, despite defects in the assessment process, writ interference was not considered warranted in the circumstances described.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the house tax demand was invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory notice and service requirements under sections 124 and 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. (ii) Whether arrears relating to earlier assessment years could be challenged in an appeal filed against the demand for the assessment year 1984-85.

Issue (i): Whether the house tax demand was invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory notice and service requirements under sections 124 and 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

Analysis: The assessment machinery required compliance with the statutory notice procedure. The notice relied upon by the Corporation was addressed to an owner at the plot address, although the plot was vacant and no one resided there. The Court found that this did not amount to valid service on the owner and that the mandatory requirements governing assessment and levy had not been properly followed.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be unjustified and illegal, and the challenge on this issue failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether arrears relating to earlier assessment years could be challenged in an appeal filed against the demand for the assessment year 1984-85.

Analysis: In municipal taxation, each assessment year stands on its own. A challenge filed against the 1984-85 bill could not reopen assessments for earlier years that had already attained finality. At the same time, the Court noted that the invalidity in the assessment process and the failure to follow mandatory provisions meant that interference under article 226 was unwarranted in the circumstances, especially where the amount involved was small and the tax had been wrongly collected.

Conclusion: The earlier assessment years could not properly be reopened in that appeal, but no interference was called for in writ jurisdiction; the result remained against the corporation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, leaving intact the relief granted to the respondents and confirming that the impugned tax demand was not to be disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A municipal tax demand is invalid where the mandatory statutory notice and service requirements are not properly complied with, and a challenge to a later assessment year cannot by itself reopen earlier assessments that have attained finality.

---