( 1 )

( 2 ) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.

( 3 ) THIS batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioner impuging the orders of the appellate authority and raising a question of law as to whether the mere specification of the arrears of house tax in a house tax bill can given rise to a cause of action to the assessee to impugn the same before the appellate authority in so far as it relates to the arrears for which neither the assessment orders nor bills were impugned earlier.

( 4 ) THE premises in question bear No. MB-34, Inder Prakash Building, 21, barakhamba Road, New Delhi were originally purchased by one Master Sudesh behl (minor), beneficiary Trust and thereafter transferred to the respondent in pursuance to agreement to sell dated 20. 4. 2001. It is stated that vide the assessment order dated 22. 3. 97 assessment was completed for the years 19894990, 1990-1991, 1991-92 and the rateable value was fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/- and for the assessment years 1989 to 1999-2000 notice are stated to have been issued for each assessment year but no objections were filed by the assesse and the same rateable value was adopted year after year and bills raised.

( 5 ) ON 26. 3. 99 objections were filed by the recorded owner for the assessment year 1999-2000 but the same were rejected on 28. 7. 1999 and the rateable value was maintained at Rs. 1,50,000/ -.

( 6 ) THE respondents for the first time applied for mutation of the property in their name on 4. 4. 2000 and the mutation was allowed on 19. 4. 2000. On 30. 9. 2000 the assessment order was passed by the competent authority allowing the objections filed by the respondents in respect of the year 2000-2001 and the rateable value was fixed at Rs. 27,000/ -. Bills were issued dated 24. 10. 2000 for the current years showing arrears due in respect of previous years. A representation was made by the respondents for reduction in ratebale value and the benefit of the same from the year 1989-1990 onwards. On 20. 12. 2000 separate appeals were filed by the respondents against the bills in question in respect of different assessment years and the said appeals were allowed on 5. 3. 2001 by the appellate authority holding that there was no bar of limitation to challenging the earlier orders of assessment in view of the bill dated 24. 10. 2000.

( 7 ) IT is this conclusion of the appellate authority which is sought to be impugned in these writ petitions.

( 8 ) IT would be relevant to note that in the bills dated 24. 10. 2000 the column for details of property tax shows the current demand and arrears of demand separately as under:- details OP PROPERTY TAX a, CURRENT DEMAND TAX PENALTY NF demand Covered in this bill. Tax demand for the year 2000-2001 675o addl. demand raised in 2000-2001 for earlier years. O b. ARREAR DEMAND demand not Covered in this bill. Demand for which, bills issued upto 31. 03. 2000 193865 365o6 49 total A+b 200615 363o6 49

( 9 ) THE aforesaid thus shows that the current demand is shown separately and the arrears of demand are separately shown stating that the said demand is not covered in this bill.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that mere mentioning in the arrears in the bill would not suffice for maintaining the appeal. It is not disputed that in view of the provisions of appeal under section 115 of the NDMC Act, 1994 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the said Act) an appeal is maintainable both against levy or assessment of any tax. It is, however, contended that in the present case the bill in question only levies the amount for the current year and the mere mention of the arrears under a separate column will not make the same as a levy to make it appealable since the bill itself specifically states that the same is arrear of demand and the said demand is not covered in the bill.

( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that admittedly no notice of transfer w