Supreme Court of India

New Delhi Municipal Committee, ... vs Indian Bank Ltd. on 6 February, 1967
Author: K Hegde
Bench: K Hegde, J Singh
JUDGMENT K.S. Hegde, C.J.
summary:

Two new rooms were erected and completed on 1/10/58 in the back compound of
the premises. The shop including two new rooms is new being used as Bank
premises and the same is reasonably expected to be let out at monthly rent of
Rs. 600 from year to year. It was under-assessed for the year 1958-59 by
accident and, therefore, the assessment is now proposed to be amended as
shown above on the basis of monthly reasonable rent of Rs. 600. The expression
"misrepresentation", found in the notice, is wholly out of place in this case.
"Misrepresentation" is not a ground for altering the assessment. Further, it is
nobody's case that the respondent had made any misrepresentation to the
Municipal Committee, Apart from mechanically stating in the notice that the
respondent was under-assessed "by mistake or fraud or misrepresentation," it is
not stated therein what that "mistake or fraud or misrepresentation" is. It is true
that the notice in question was issued in a printed form. But it was the duty of
the issuing officer to strike out the unnecessary words in the printed form. The
present case of the Municipal Committee is that during the assessment year
1957-58 there was an under-assessment due to mistake. If that is true, then the
officer, who issued the notice, should have struck out the words "or fraud or
misrepresentation". That is not all. In the notice, it is stated that the details of
"mistake or fraud or misrepresentation" are given on the back side of the
notice.Therein it is merely mentioned that the respondent completed the
erection of two new rooms "on 1/10/58 in the back compound of the premises.
The shop including two rooms is now being used as Bank premises and the same
is reasonably expected to be let out at monthly rent of Rs. 600 from year to year.
It is no where stated in the notice or in the details given on the back of the notice
that the annual letting value of those two rooms was not taken into consideration
while determining the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58, and
consequently there was under-assessment. It may be that the officer, who issued
the notice, intended to say that the annual letting value of those two rooms had
not been taken into consideration in determining the annual letting value of the
premises and hence the same was underassessed; but the fact remains that he
did not say so. We have already said that a notice under section 67 will have to
be strictly construed. The requirements of that section have to be strictly
complied with.