1987 (7) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... obtained the lease from the Delhi Development Authority. The case of the petitioner/Corporation is that, vide notice dated March 18, 1980, the rateable value of the vacant plot was sought to be fixed at Rs. 1,600 with effect from April 1, 1979. It is alleged that no objections were filed and the rateable value was confirmed as proposed by the Assistant Assessor and the Collector. According to the petitioner, public notice was issued under section 124 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, in respect of the subsequent assessment years, namely, 1981-82 to 1984-85, but no objections were received. The rateable value was accordingly confirmed at Rs. 1,600. It is the admitted case that a bill dated November 10, 1982, was served ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dum of appeal. If the intention of the Additional District Judge was that the Corporation ought to have filed a reply to the memorandum of appeal, then, I am afraid, the conclusion to this effect is not correct. When such a ground is raised in the grounds of appeal, the Corporation can meet the same at the time of the arguments. Of course, if the court so desires, it would, be at liberty to ask for a written explanation or a reply or an affidavit from the Corporation. This, however, had not been done in the present case. The Additional District judge, therefore, cannot find fault with the Corporation in not filing a written reply to the grounds of appeal. The Additional District judge has then come to the conclusion that the petitioner h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the petitioner is correct. In such cases of taxation, each assessment year stands by itself. The assessment of each year has to be made separately. It is no doubt true that in the notice dated October 22, 1984, the arrears of the earlier years had also been included but the appeal which was filed, in law, was only against the assessment for the year 1984-85. The assessments which had been made earlier, even if they were irregularly made, had become final and could not be a subject-matter of the appeal which was filed. In the memorandum of appeal, it has been stated that notice had been received by the owners informing them about the rateable value which had been fixed and objection had been filed thereto. Receipt of the bill dated Novemb....