R.C. Lahoti, J.
(1) By this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of a notice dated 23.3.1992 (Annexure-4), issued by the Assistant Assessor & Collector Mcd under Section 126(l)(3) of the Dmc Act, 1957 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the order of assessment dated 22.2.1995 (Annexure-6) made pursuant to the notice (Annexure-4).
(2) The petitioner owns a property bearing No. B- 61, Soami Nagar, New Delhi. It appears that the property was previously assessed at a rateable value of Rs. 4860.00 . The impugned notice (Annexure-4) was issued proposing a rateable value of Rs. 3,70,580.00 for the years 1988-89 to 1991-92. The petitioner appears to have given a response to the notice submitting that the notice did not disclose how and why the rateable value was proposed to be enhanced and unless that was done, a revision of rateable value to the higher side was not permissible made. It was also stated that the premises were self-occupied by the petitioner for his personal residence and so also the revision of the rateable value to the higher side was not permissible. On 22.2.1995, Deputy Assessor & Collector passed the impugned order revising the rateable value to Rs. 3,70,580.00 , as was proposed, w.e.f. 1.4.1988 inasmuch as the petitioner had defaulted in appearance before the assessing authority in spite of opportunities having been allowed for the purpose. It is submitted by the petitioner that the notice under Section 126 is liable to be struck down as it is vocative of the mandatory requirements of the relevant provisions and the order of assessment is liable to be set aside as it does not state the reasons for revising the rateable value.
(3) It is pertinent to note that the response (Annexure-5) said to have been made by the petitioner to notice (Annexure-4) does not mention any date and the petition also does not state the date on which it might have been issued and delivered to the respondent.
(4) According to the respondent the notice was valid as requisite reasons for revision of rateable value were stated therein. The petitioner was sent a number of call letters viz. dated 29.12.92, 30.1.93, 19.12.93, 21.7.94 and 23.12.94 which required petitioner's appearance before the assessing authority respectively on 13.1.93, 17.2.93, 13.3.93, 25.7.94 and 16.1.1995 but there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The assessing authority was left with no option to finalise the assessment at the proposed rateable value in accordance with rule 9 of the Assessment List Bye Laws 1959.
(5) Two questions arise for decision. Firstly, whether the notice under Section 126 was bad as it was vague and did not state the reasons or grounds for the proposed revision of rateable value, and secondly whether the order of assessment is bad as it does not state the reasons for revision of rateable value.
(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Savitri Devi vs Mcd, : 55(1994)DLT391 wherein it has been held :-
'The opportunity given to the owner/occupier of the building must be meaningful and the printed form on the basis of which notice dated 5th March, 1993 and 13th January, 1993 are issued, do not conform to basic principles of natural justice. No details as to the additions or alterations etc were specified in the above show cause notice. In our view, it is some details of additions or alterations, fixtures and fittings etc are to be furnished to the occupier/owner and a copy of the inspection report on the basis of which it is proposed to increase the rateable value are also to be given. Unless the show cause notice gives particulars, one cannot expect the owner/occupier to give effective reply.'
(7) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on another Division Bench decision of this Court in Govt Servants Cooperative House Building Society Ltd vs Union of India : AIR1994Delhi112 , wherein a notice of the nature as is impugned in the present petition was upheld as valid.
(8) In Savitri Devi's case, the Assessor & Collector had concluded the assessment on 30-4-94 by referring to an inspection report dated 28.2.92 holding that it was a case in which there were additions/alterations and modification in the building which had escaped assessment even when the 1986-87 assessment was made. The petitioner was charged with suppressing certain additions and alterations which were already made and the assessing authority had held that there was an escapement of facts. The petitioner had written a letter contending that no additions, alterations, modification or fresh construction had been made in the premises. Show cause notice dated 31.3.93 proposing the enhancement of the rateable value from 34800.00 to Rs. 6 lakhs did not mention the reasons or facts why the enhancement was necessary. On behalf of the Mcd reliance was placed on an earlier notice dated 5.3.93 and it was contended that that notice contained the requisite particulars. This previous notice bore a rubber stamp which read as follows :
'Increase in R.V. on account of additions, alterations, renovation, affixing of fixtures and fittings integral to the fabric structure. Increase in amount of rateable value after amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act changing valuation of standard rent from 8.25/8.625 to 10% and excluding properties with the rent above Rs., 3,500.00 per month.'
8.1It was in this background that the Division Bench made observation noted in para 6 hereinabove. However, the relief which the Division Bench ultimately allowed is worth noticing. In the operative part of its order the Division Bench has stated :
'In these circumstances, we quash the notices dated 5.3.1993 and 13th January, 1993. In the peculiar facts of this case, we direct the respondent to issue a supplementary show- cause notice giving all particulars mentioned above. After issuing supplementary notice, it will be for the petitioner to submit an Explanationn in regard thereto. Thereafter a hearing will be given to the parties and the questions of law will be disposed of while passing a reasoned order. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, (underlining by us)
8.2It is noticeable that the Division Bench in spite of quashing the notice dated 5.3.93 and 13.1.93 directed the respondent to issue a supplementary show cause notice giving opportunity to the assessed but did not quash the entitlement of the respondent Mcd to make assessment for the period in question.
(9) In Govt Servants Cooperative House Building Society Ltd's case (supra) also the notice under Section 126 bore an endorsement to the following effect: - 'Additions/ alterations/ erroneously valued/ increase in rateable value/including giving effect to amendments in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1988
9.1.The Division Bench observed : 'The reasons for amendment in the assessment list are quite sufficient and they put the petitioners on notice as to why rateable value is sought to be increased. Petitioners also very well know this and as a matter of fact if we refer to their reply in the form of objections to notice under Section 126 of the Dmc Act they know what is required of them. Their grievance that notices are vague has no basis.
9.2.The above said decision though earlier in point of time does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Division Bench deciding Savitri Devi's case.
(10) In the case at hand, notice Annexure-4 has a column entitled- 'Reasons in brief for amendment in the Assessment List' and in that column there is a rubber stamp affixed, a part of which is illegible. Learned counsel for the respondent Mcd has during the course of hearing pointed out that there were amendments in the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act introduced by Delhi Rent (Control) Amendment Act, 1988 and there was also an amendment in the provisions of Section 126 of the Dmc Act whereby sub-section (3) and (4) were inserted therein. This gave rise to revision of rateable value in thousands of cases wherein notices were required to be issued by a time-bound programme and it would have been physically impossible for municipal staff to write details setting out the grounds of revision in each individual case; the Corporation, thereforee, devised a rubber stamp common to all such cases which could give an idea as to why the revision was undertaken. It is submitted that if there be a formal or technical defect in the contents of the notice then the assessing authority was only too willing to co-operate with the assessed and disclose him all the grounds and material forming basis of revision if only the assessed took the trouble of appearing before the assessing authority and asking for requisite information. The case at hand is a peculiar example of an unwilling assessed who has given an undated response (Annexure-V) to the assessing authority but never cared to appear before it in spite of five communications having been addressed to him appointing five dates of hearing. This left no other option open to the assessing authority except to proceed with the finalisation of the assessment resorting to Rule 9 of the Assessment List By Laws 1959 which reads as under:
9(4)If no objection is received or if objection is not received within the time limit specified in this behalf in the notice, the assessment list shall be finally amended by confirming the provisional amendment made in the assessment list.'
(11) It is true that the assessing authority cannot be left totally unbridled while exercising its jurisdiction to make an assessment or amendment in the assessment. It must observe and comply with the legal provisions. When it is proposed to revise the assessment list a notice has to go to the assessee. The notice must briefly indicate the grounds for revision. On the appearance of the assessed it should make available to assessed the grounds/reasons for revision in the rateable value, more so when it is proposed to be made on higher side. A statement of grounds/reasons in a notice would apprise the assessed with requisite information wherefrom he may form an opinion whether to contest or not to contest the proposed revision. If the assessed may choose to contest the notice, he must show cause. If he may choose not to contest the notice, he may accept the rateable value proposed in the notice. They are the grounds/reasons or the facts forming basis of revision as stated in the notice which would bind the assessee. However, if the notice is too vague and does not make a clear statement of the grounds/reasons for amendment in the assessment list, then the assessed cannot hold himself back by resorting to technicality and allowing the assessing authority to proceed ahead and then challenge the assessment by submitting that the assessment was bad as the notice itself was bad. Want of notice has to be distinguished from a defective notice. Want of notice under S. 126 would vitiate the revision in the assessment list. A defective notice can be cured by issuing a supplementary notice as was allowed to be done in Savitri Devi's case (supra) by supplying the reasons/requisite information to the assessing authority on the assessed appearing before it. We are not inclined to quash the notice Annexure-4, more so, in the facts of the case when we find that the assessed has not cared to appear before the assessing authority despite five dates of hearing having been appointed.
(12) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 126 mandates an amendment in the assessment list not to be made unless preceded by a notice of not less than one month. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 126 provides that liability to pay any tax or increase of tax cannot arise in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the year in which the notice under sub- section (2) is given. thereforee, the court shall ordinarily lean in favor of validity of notice so long as it can be sustained. Quashing a notice under Section 126(2) merely for asking or on the ground of technicalities or on the ground of such irregularities as are being capable of being cured would result in depriving the Municipal Corporation of revenue because the notice having been quashed a fresh notice shall have to be required to be issued and the Municipal Corporation would be deprived of its right to recover the tax for all the years preceding the year in which notice shall now be issued. In the case at hand the defect in the notice Would have been properly cured either by supplying the information or by issuing a fresh notice if only the petitioner would have appeared before the assessing authority in response to the call notice issued by it.
(13) An order of assessment must assign reasons though brief they may be. Section 124 of the Act contemplates preparation of an assessment list. Finalisation is subject to hearing and disposal of the objection. The very fact that the objections are invited and are to be disposed of casts an obligation on the authority to give an indication of what was working in its mind while upholding or rejecting any objections. The obligation to assign reasons stands on a higher pedestal while directing an assessment list to be amended. Objections in response to a notice proposing an assessment may or may not be preferred still while permitting an amendment in the assessment list the authority must give briefly an indication of the reasons or grounds which have prevailed with it in holding in favor of amendment. Such orders are subject to judicial review. Unless reasons are given, the remedy of judicial review will be rendered infructuous.
(14) Though we are upholding the validity of notice Annexure-4 and treating the defect therein as curable one but the respondent should not misunderstand us as giving a license to it for issuing blank and/or bald notices. The concerned officials of Mcd must exercise effective supervision and control over its staff issuing notices under Section 126. Even if rubber stamp notices are required to be resorted to because of volume of work and identical cases arising en masse, care should be taken to affix rubber stamp in such a manner that the contents are legible and portions/ alternatives forming part of the rubber stamp but required to be scored out, are consciously scored out so as to make the message sought to be delivered by rubber stamp legible and clear,capable of being understood by the assessed in conformity with the facts of individual case.
(15) Before parting, it may be stated in all fairness to the counsel for the petitioner that he had relied on a good number of decisions such as Mohd. Yousuf Rather VS . State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. : [1980]1SCR258 , Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs . The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. : [1978]2SCR272 , Union of India VS . Mohan Lal Capoor & 0rs., : (1973)IILLJ504SC , Jagannath Misra VS . State of Orissa : 1966CriLJ817 and G.Kondala Rao VS . Registrar Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati & Anr. : AIR1995AP338 . We would have dealt with all these decisions but we find it not necessary to do so as the decisions cited by the counsel are cases of Preventive Detention or Election Law and the like. The law laid down wherein cannot be stretched and applied to the cases of assessment of property tax by the Municipal Corporation. We have dealt with the twin issues arising for decision on the first principles and that in our opinion suffices for the case at hand.
(16) The petition is allowed. The order of assessment dated 22.2.1995 Annexure-6 is hereby quashed and set aside. Pursuant to the notice dated 23.3.92, Annexure-4 the petitioner is directed to appear before the Deputy Assessor & Collector Circle XX.SAU on 15.4.96. The assessing authority shall provide the petitioner with such information forming the basis for proposed revision of assessment as the petitioner may ask for, which information shall be deemed to be supplemental to the notice Annexure-4. Thereafter the assessing authority shall after affording an opportunity of hearing pass an order of assessment afresh consistently with the observations made hereinabove and in accordance with law. No order as to costs.