We need not go into all the diverse contentions raised before the High Court as counsel for the appellant raised before us the following three questions only (1) that while making the, assessment the procedure contemplated by sections 127, 129(c) of the Act and rr. 9 to 20 of the Taxation Rules was not cornplied with inasmuch as no ward assessment books were maintained, and consequently, the entries therein were not authenticated as required by r. 19; (2) that section 129 suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative powering as the Act fails to provide either the maximum rate leviable by the Corporation or the guidelines for levying the tax; (3) that in any view of the matter, in the circumstances in which the resolution raising the rate was passed, it did not impose the enhanced rate on the property of the appellant as the same was ,not, prior to April 1961 ' subjected to the U.I.P. tax.