Case: Punjab National Bank Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee

1. The appellant, Punjab National Bank Limited, is the owner of a building bearing municipal No. 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi. After completion of its construction, it was occupied on July 1, 1958. The building was not entered in the assessment list which was to be operative during the period from April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959. On September 4, 1959, the New Delhi Municipal Committee, the respondent here, purporting to act under S. 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, hereinafter referred to as the Act, issued a notice to the appellant stating :This is to inform you that your building mentioned at the back of this letter has been completed and is in fact occupied from 1-7-1958 and ought to be assessed to House tax by amending the list for 1959-60 under S. 67 of the Municipal Act, 1911 and this Committee has, vide resolution No. 30 dated 10-7-1959 proposed to amend the list for the year 1959-60 by inserting the said property on an annual value as given at the back of this letterIt is further proposed that the tax will take effect from 1-4-1959Notice is hereby given to you under Section 67 of the P.M. Act that the Committee will consider the question of the amendment of the list and will hear objections in Meeting Room on 20th day of November, 1959 at 10.00 A.M2. The appellant objected to the amendment of the list and levy of the tax for the period in question but the objection was overruled and the respondent passed a resolution confirming the proposed assessment on December 21, 1959. Thereafter the respondent sent a bill for the tax for the period. This was followed by a notice of demand3. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from enforcing the demand on the ground that the respondent had no jurisdiction to include the building in the assessment list. The trial Court decreed the suit. The District Judge on appeal, agreed with the view of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The second appeal filed against his decision was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court. An appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge which came up before a Division Bench of the Court which referred the case to a larger Bench. The Bench, by a majority, set aside the order of the single Judge and dismissed the suit. This appeal, by certificate, is from this decision.

Reasoning: 10.We think that the conclusion of the majority is correct. The assessment list for the year commencing from April 1, 1959, had to be settled by March, 31 1959 at the latest; this list was liable to be amended under S. 67 even after March 31, 1959, on any of the grounds mentioned in that section. Section 66 does not say that the amendment of the assessment list should have been made before March 31, 1959. The expression subject to such amendment as may thereafter be duly made in S. 66 would indicate that the amendment of the list could be made even after March 31, 1959, as S. 67 provides for amendment of the list at any time. And when the list was so amended, it shall be deemed to have been in force for the year which commenced from April 1, 1959, and ended on March 31, 1960, and the tax assessed therein shall be deemed to be the tax for the financial year commencing from April 1, 1959.In other words, it was not necessary that the assessment list should have been amended before March 31, 1959, in order that the municipal committee may impose house tax on the building for the period from April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960. An amendment of the list under S. 67 was permissible on any of the grounds mentioned in the section even after March 31, 1959, as otherwise, the expression at any time would have no meaning. The words subject to such amendments as may thereafter be duly made in S. 66 postulate that a list finalized before 1st January or 1st April is liable to be amended thereafter under S. 67.The building was certainly liable to be included in the assessment list which was finalized on March 31, 1959, but by some mistake it was not so included. The list was, therefore, liable to be amended under S. 67. That was done. When the list was amended, the tax assessed for the building shall be deemed to be the tax for it in the year which commenced from April 1, 1959, and ended on March 31, 196013. We do not think that any universal rule can be laid down as to the meaning of the expression at any time. It all depends upon the context in which the expression occurs. We think that the expression at any time occurring in S. 67, when read in conjunction with the word thereafter in S. 66, can only lead to the conclusion that the amendment of the list in question was permissible even after March 31, 195914. The appellant contended that the building was not included in the list which was operative for the period which commenced from April 1, 1959 and ended on March 31, 1960. We have perused the assessment list produced before us and we are satisfied that the amendment was made by inserting the building in the list which was finalised on March 31, 1959, and which was operative for the period which commenced from 1st April, 1959 and ended on 31st March, 1960.