The assessing authority must consider submitted objections before amending the assessment list, ensuring compliance with statutory obligations and providing fair opportunity for hearing.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks quashing of assessment order dated 26.11.2020, notice of demand dated 04.03.2021 and warrants of attachment dated 23.03.2021, issued by the respondent/Council.

3. By the impugned assessment order dated 26.11.2020, the rateable value of Rs.1,62,000/- has been enhanced with effect from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010 to Rs.3,37,05,600/- and from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 to Rs.3,87,61,400/-, from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2016 to Rs.4,45,75,600/-, from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2019 to Rs.5,12,62,000/- and from 01.04.2019 onwards to Rs.5,89,51,300/-.

4. By impugned notice of demand dated 04.03.2021, petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.17,40,73,412/-. Further, by warrants of attachment dated 23.02.2021, the bank account of the petitioner with Central Bank of India, Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi has been attached.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 26.11.2020 suffers from several infirmity in as much as it records that no response has been filed to notice dated 31.03.2008. He submits that objections were filed on 02.05.2008, however, the assessing officer has erroneously recorded that no response was received.

6. Learned senior counsel further contends that for a period of over 12 years there was no communication received from the respondent and subsequently a notice dated 18.11.2020 was received on 23.11.2020 requiring the petitioner to appear before the assessing officer on 25.11.2020.

7. He submits that since time was short and in view of the prevailing pandemic, request was made to grant an opportunity of 15 days to respond to the notice, however, instead of acceding to the request, the very next day impugned order has been passed.

8. On 04.05.2021, learned counsel appearing for the respondent had prayed for time to take instructions. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent is willing to give a fresh hearing to the petitioner provided petitioner deposits at least 75% of the demanded amount.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that insofar as the factual matrix as contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is not dispute with regard to the same. However, he submits that on 25.11.2020 instead of appearing before the Assessing Officer, petitioner had merely given a request in the Central Registry Branch of NDMC.

10. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that petitioner had filed objection on 02.05.2008 to the notice dated 30.03.2008. Sub-section (2) to Section 72 obliges the Chairperson of NDMC to give notice to any person affected by amendment in the assessment list and also obliges him to consider any objection which may be made by such person.

11. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 26.11.2020 has been passed pursuant to notice dated 31.03.2008. Petitioner had filed objections to the said notice. Impugned order records to the contrary that no response has been received from the recorded owner with regard to the said notice.

12. For a long gap from 31.03.2008 till 18.11.2020, there was no communication from the respondent to the petitioner with regard to the proposed amendment in the assessment list. On 18.11.2020, notice was issued requiring the petitioner to appear for final hearing on 25.11.2020.

13. The case of the petitioner is that notice was received only on 23.11.2020. The notice has an endorsement "Regd/Speed post". This endorsement indicates that the notice would have been dispatc