( 1 ) THE petitioner is questioning the house-tax demand notice dated 23-12-1998 issued by the third respondent in respect of House No. 1-259. Against the column tax arrears , the year 1997-98 is mentioned and the tax due is specified as Rs. 26,933. Thereafter, against the column first year tax the year 98-99 is mentioned and the tax is mentioned as Rs. 5,985. 00. To these two figures, the surcharge (probably for delay in payment) of Rs. 6464. 00 is added and a total tax of Rs. 39,382. 00 has been demanded to be paid with a threat of attachment of properties and prosecution in case of non-payment. It is apparent that the demand notice is bald and vague and contains wrong recitals. The petitioner therefore rightly submitted a representation protesting against the arbitrary demand and requesting for particulars. The Commissioner of Municipality by his communication dated 21-1-1999 has sent a reply slating that the petitioner failed to pay property tax with effect from 1-10-1993 till date and that the Municipality has power to recover the dues upto nine years. Thereafter, details of property tax are set out which are virtually the repetition of what has been stated in the demand notice. The only additional information we get from this communication dated 21-1-1999 is that the amount of Rs. 26,933 represents the alleged arrears of tax from 1-10-1993 to 1997-98. The contention of the petitioner that no notice was issued before assessment and no demand notice was served earlier remains unanswered in the counter-affidavit. Nothing is mentioned about the details of assessment relating to the house even in the counter-affidavit. The broad basis of assessment has been explained in paragraph-5 in a language which it is difficult to understand. We quote the words of the Commissioner:"it is submitted that, the property tax is to be assessed on the basis of plinth area to conclude rental value and then tax will be levied uniformally at the rate of 20% on annual rental value on residential buildings and 25% on annual rental value on non residential buildings. As such petitioner s allegation on Annual Rental Value to the neighbour house and tax levied by this office on his house comparison is not correct as such the same is demand. Even though in some times the plinth area is equal, there may difference about usage of the building. The tax leviable on plinth area basis only for conclusion to arrive rental value but not for tax, after rental value basing the usage only lax will be levied as per above said rates. Hence petitioner argument comparing tax or rental value with neighbours is illegal. "thus, an omnibus demand notice has been raised and the respondent failed to divulge the details of assessment either in his communication dated 21-1-1999 or in the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition. To say the least, the demand notice is in utter disregard of the rules governing the assessment and demand of property tax and in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, the house was constructed in the year 1993. That means, the first assessment year is 1993-94. There is no clarification in the counter that there was an assessment earlier to 1993. When the assessment was made for the first time, a special notice ought to have been given under Rule 11 of Taxation and Finance Rules Schedule II of the Act and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to file a revision. The learned Standing Counsel has specifically stated before us that the assessment has been made for the first time and the first demand notice was issued on 13-10-1998. It is not the case of the Standing Counsel that the notice dated 13-10-1998 (which is not placed before us) contains any more details than what are contained in the demand notice dated 23-12-1998 impugned in the writ petition. The demand notice either of 13-10-1998 or 23-12-1998 cannot be construed as an assessment as contemplated by Rul