http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/12/1972

BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN MUKHERJEA, B.K.

CITATION:  1973 AIR  674            1973 SCR  (3) 169  1973 SCC  (1) 579  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1977 SC2134  (17)

ACT: Punjab  Municipal  Act, 1911-S. 66 and 67-Whether  NDMC  can include a building retrospectively in the assessment list by amendment.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant is the owner of No. 5 Parliament Street,  New Delhi.  The building was not entered in the assessment  list to  be  operative during April 1, 1958 to  March  31,  1959, although  it was occupied after completion on July 1,  1968. Under S. 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the NDMC by a resolution  dated November 20, 1959 amended  the  assessment list  which was operative for the period April 1,  1959,  to March 31, 1960 and imposed house tax on the building for the year 1959-60. Section 67 of the Act provides that the Committee may at any time  amend  the  list after giving  notice  to  any  person affected by the amendment and Sub. s. (2) provides that  any interested  person may tender his objection and he shall  be given an opportunity of being heard etc. The only question that arose for decision before this  Court was  whether  the  Respondent was entitled  to  include  the building in the assessment list, which was operative for the period April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (i) The assessment list for the year commencing  from April  1, 1959, had to be settled by March 31, 1959, at  the latest.  This list was liable to be amended under S. 67 even after  March  31, 1959, on any of the grounds  mentioned  in that  Section.  Sec. 66 does not say that the amendment  of the  assessment list should have been made before March  31, 1959.   The  expression "subject to such  amendment  as  may thereafter be duly made" in Sec. 66 would indicate that  the amendment  of  the list could be made even after  March  31, 1959  as Sec. 67 provides for amendment of the list "at  any time." [193BC] It  is  not necessary that the assessment list  should  have been  amended  before  March 31, 1959,  in  order  that  the Municipal Committee may impose house tax on the building for the  period  from  April  1, 1959 to  March  31,  1960.   An

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

amendment of the list under S. 67 was permissible on any  of the  grounds mentioned in the Section even after  March  31, 1959, as otherwise, the expression "at any time" would  have no meaning. [193EF] (ii) Further,  the meaning of the expression "at  any  time" will depend upon the context in which the expression occurs. The  expression "at any time" occurring in S. 67  read  with the  word  "thereafter"  in  S. 66  can  only  lead  to  the conclusion  that the amendment of the list in  question  was permissible even after March 31, 1959. [195A] Central  Bank of India Ltd.  Amritsar v. The  Hartford  Fire Insurance  Co.  Ltd.  A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1288; Exparte  Norris in Re Salder 17 Q.B.D. 728 referred to 190

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1315  of 1972.  Appeal  by  certificate from the judgment and  order  dated  October  28, 1969 of the Delhi High Court at New  Delhi  in Letters Patent Appeal No. 93 of 1967. M.   C.  Chagla,  S. K. Mehta and K. R.  Nagaraja,  for  the appellant. D.   D.  Chawla,  H.  K. Puri and S.  K.  Dhingra,  for  the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J.  The appellant, Punjab National Bank Limited,  is the owner of a building bearing municipal No. 5,  Parliament Street, New Delhi.  After completion of its construction, it was ,occupied on July 1, 1958.  The building was not entered in the assessment list which was to be operative during  the period from April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959.  On  September 4,  1959, the New Delhi Municipal Committee, the  respondent here, purporting to act under s. 67 of the Punjab  Municipal Act,  191  1, hereinafter referred to as the Act,  issued  a notice to the appellant stating "This  is to inform you that your building mentioned at  the back  of  this  letter has been completed  and  is  in  fact occupied from 1-7-1958 and ought to be assessed to House tax by  amending  the list for 1959-60 under section 67  of  the Municipal Act, 1911 and this Committee has, vide  resolution No.  30 dated 10-7-1959 proposed to amend the list  for  the year  1959-60  by inserting the said property on  an  annual value as given at the back of this letter. "It  is further proposed that the tax will take effect  from 1-4-1959. "Notice is hereby given to you under section 67 of the P. M. Act  that  the Committee will consider the question  of  the amendment  of the list and will hear objections  in  Meeting Room on 20th day of, November, 1959 at 10.00 A.M." The appellant objected to the amendment of the list and levy of the tax for the period in question but the objection  was over-ruled,   and   the  respondent  passed   a   resolution confirming  the  proposed assessment on December  21,  1959. Thereafter  the respondent sent a bill for the tax  for  the period.  This was followed by a notice of demand. 191 The   appellant  filed  a  suit  for  permanent   injunction restraining the respondent from enforcing the demand on  the ground  that the respondent had no jurisdiction  to  include the  building  in  the assessment  list.   The  trial  Court decreed  the  suit.  The District Judge, on  appeal,  agreed with  the view of the trial Court and dismissed the  appeal.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

The  second appeal filed against his decision was  dismissed by a learned single judge of the High Court.. An appeal  was filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge which came up before a Division Bench of the Court which  referred the  case to a larger Bench.  The Bench, by a majority,  set aside the order of the single Judge and dismissed the  suit. This appeal, by certificate, is from this decision. The only point that arises for consideration in this  appeal is  whether  the  respondent was  entitled  to  include  the building in the .assessment list which was operative for the period from April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960, by amending  it on  November 20, 1959, and impose house tax on the  building for the year 1959-60. Chapter  V  of  the Act deals  with  taxation.   Section  61 specifies  the taxes which might be imposed by  a  Municipal Committee  and one such tax is a tax payable by an owner  of building  and land.  Section 62 lays down the procedure  for imposition  of  the. taxes mentioned in s. 61.   Section  63 deals with the procedure for assessment of tax on  immovable property.   It  provides that the committee shall  cause  an assessment list of all buildings and lands on which any  tax is  imposed to be prepared.  Section 64 provides  that  when the assessment list has be-en completed, the committee shall give  public notice thereof.  Section 65 provides  that  the Committee  shall,  at  the time of the  publication  of  the assessment list, give public notice of a time not less  than one  month  thereafter, when it will proceed to  revise  the valuation,  and  assessment,  and  in  all  cases  in  which property  is for the first time assessed. or the  assessment thereof is enhanced, it shall also give notice to the  owner or  occupier of the property.  The Section further  requires that all objections to the valuation shall be made before or at  the time fixed in the notice.  Section 66  provides  for the settlement of the list and it states : "66.  Settlement of list-(i) After the objections have  been enquired into and the persons making them have been  allowed an  opportunity  of  being  heard either  in  person  or  by authorized agent as they may think fit, and the revision  of the  valuation  and  assessment  has  been  completed,   the amendments  made in the list shall be .authenticated by  the signatures of not less than two members of the Committee who shall at the same time certify that no valid objections  has been made to the 192 valuation  and assessment contained in the list,  except  in the case in which amendments have been entered therein,  and subject  to such amendments as may thereafter be duly  made, the  tax so assessed shall be deemed to be the tax  for  the year commencing on the first day of January or first day  of April next ensuing as the Committee may determine, or in the case of a tax then imposed for the first time for the period between the date on which the tax comes into force and  such first day of January or April, as the case may be. "(2)  The  list  when amended under this  section  shall  be deposited in the committee’s office and shall there be  open during  office hours to all owners or occupiers of  property comprised therein or the authorized agents of such  persons, and  a public notice that it is so open shall  forthwith  be published." Section  67  which  provides for further  amendment  of  the assessment list states : "  (1)  The  Committee may at any time  amend  the  list  by inserting  the name of any person whose name ought  to  have been  or ought to be inserted, or by inserting any  property which  ought  to have been or ought to be  inserted,  or  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

altering  the  assessment  on any property  which  has  been erroneously  valued or assessed through fraud,  accident  or mistake,  whether  on the part of the committee  or  of  the assessee, or in the case of the tax payable by the  occupier by  a  change  in the tenancy, after giving  notice  to  any person  affected by the amendment, of a time, not less  than one  month from the date of service, at which the  amendment is to be made. (2)  Any person interested in any such amendment may  tender his  objection to the committee in writing before  the  time fixed  in the notice, or orally or in writing at that  time, and  shall  be  allowed an opportunity  of  being  heard  in support of the same in person, or by authorized agent, as he may think fit." Section 68 confers a discretion on the committee to  prepare for  the  whole  or  any part  of  the  municipality  a  new assessment list every year. The  majority  was  of the view that the  amendment  of  the assessment Est, though made on November 20, 1959, was opera- tive  from April 1, 1959, and that the building, was  liable to be taxed for the year which commenced from April 1, 1959, and  ended  on March 31, 1960.  The majority  overruled  the argument 193 of  the  appellant  that  the  municipal  committee  had  no jurisdiction to amend the assessment list after the list was finalised on March 31, 1959. It  was  contended  for the appellant  that  when  once  the assessment  list  was  finalized  in  accordance  with   the provisions of the Act, the committee had no jurisdiction  to amend it thereafter. We  think  that the conclusion of the majority  is  correct. The  assessment list for the year commencing from  April  1, 1959,  had  to be settled by March 31, 1959 at  the  latest; this  list was liable to be amended under s. 67  even  after March  31,  1959, on any of the grounds  mentioned  in  that section.  Section 66 does not say that the amendment of  the assessment  list  should have been made  before  March  31,. 1959.   The  expression "subject to such  amendment  as  may thereafter  be duly made" in s. 66 would indicate  that  the amendment  ’of the list could be made even after  March  31, 1959,  as  s.  67 provides for amendment  of  the  list  "at anytime’.   And  when the list was so amended, it  shall  be deemed  to have been in force for the year  which  commenced from April 1, 1959, an( ended on March 31, 1960, and the tax assessed  therein  shall  be deemed to be the  tax  for  the financial  year  commencing from April 1,  1959.   In  other words, it was not necessary that the assessment list  should have  been amended before March 31, 1959, in order that  the municipal committee may impose house tax on the building for the  period  from  April  1, 1959 to  March  31,  1960.   An amendment of the list under s. 67 was permissible on any  of the  grounds  mentioned  in the  section  even  after  March ’31, .1959, as otherwise, the expression "at any time" would have  no meaning.  The words "subject to such amendments  as may thereafter be duly made" in s. 66 postulate that a  list finalized  before 1st January or 1st April is Liable  to  be amended thereafter under s. 67.  The building was  certainly liable  to  be  included in the assessment  list  which  was finalized on March 31. 1959, but by some mistake it was  not so included.  The list was, therefore, liable to be  amended under s. 67.  That was done.  When the list was amended, the tax assessed for the building shall be deemed to be the  tax for  it in the year which commenced from April 1, 1959,  and ended on March 31, 1960.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

We are not impressed by the argument of Mr. Chagla that  the expression  "at any time" in s. 67 means that the  amendment of  the  assessment list could have been made  only  before March 31, 1959.  We think that the purpose behind s. 67  was to  enable the Municipal Committee to amend, the  assessment list  at any time on any of the grounds  mentioned  therein. Counsel referred to the decision in Ex-parte Norris.  In  Re Salder(1) in support of his (1) 17 Q.B.D. 728. 14-L631Sup.CI/73 194 contention  that  the  words "at any time"  in  s.  67  must receive a narrow construction as otherwise there will be  no limit of time for the amendment of the list.  What  happened in  that case was that a secured creditor, having stated  in his proof the value at which lie assessed his security,  the trustee gave him written notice that "it was his  intention" to redeem the security so valued, and thereupon applied  for and received from the Board of Trade the amount required for such  redemption.   Before any further step  was  taken  the creditor  applied  to  amend his valuation  and  proof,  the security having increased in value.  The Court held that no- thing  had  occurred  to prevent the  amendment  from  being allowed.   In  so  holding the Court  had  to  consider  the argument  based  on  rule  13 of the  2nd  Schedule  to  the Bankruptcy  Act,  1883, which provided that a  creditor  may amend the valuation and proof "at any time".  Lord Esher  M. R.,  after stating that the Court has no right  to  diminish the  full force of the words "at any time" unless  from  the Act  itself or the Rules it is possible to find some  neces- sary implication to limit the force of the words, observed "That  they are to have some limitation cannot, I think,  be doubted;  it cannot be that the right is to go on for  ever. One  necessary implication, at all events, I think is,  that the  right  is  at an end, if the trustee  acting  upon  the valuation  put  upon  the  security  by  the  creditor,  has exercised the right given to him by the 12th rule, to redeem the  security  "on payment to the creditor of  the  assessed value".  It is impossible to suppose that, after the trustee has paid the amount of the valuation, and has thus on behalf of the general body of the creditors become the purchaser of the security, the creditor can undo all that." The  respondent on the other hand submitted that  the  words "at any time" in s. 67 must be given the widest amplitude as the purpose of s. 67 is to rectify any omission in the  list occasioned  by the mistake, fraud, accident of the  assessee or the Committee as the case may be, and reliance was placed on the decision in the Central Bank of India Ltd.,  Amritsar v. The Hardford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd.(") where this  Court had  to  construe  the expression  "This  insurance  may  be terminated  at  any  time at the  request  of  the  insured" occurring in an insurance policy; it was held that the words "at any time" can only mean "at any time the party concerned likes". We do not think that any universal rule can he laid down  as to  the meaning of the expression "at any time".   It  all depends (1)  A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1288. 195 upon  the context in which the expression occurs.  We  think that  the expression "at any time" occurring in s. 67,  when read in conjunction with the word "thereafter" in s. 66  can only  lead to the conclusion that the amendment of the  list in question was permissible even after March 31, 1959. The  appellant contended that the building was not  included

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

in  the  list  which  was operative  for  the  period  which commenced  from April 1, 1959 and ended on March  31,  1960. We  have perused the assessment list produced before us  and we  are satisfied that the amendment was made  by  inserting the  building in the list which was finalised on  March  31, 1959, and which was operative for the period which commenced from 1st April, 1959 and ended on 31st March, 1960. We think that the majority was right in their conclusion and we  discuss  the appeal but, in the circumstances,  make  no order as to costs. S.C.                                                  Appeal dismissed. 196