- (1.) 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, 1911, 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 S. 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."
(2.) The appellant objected to the amendment of the list and levy of the tax for the period in question but the objection was overruled 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.
(3.) 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. 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.;