MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Shukla, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the year 2008-09, respondent No. 2 has made a provisional demand towards house tax at Rs. 6,293/-. Thereafter, the notice has been issued, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, for filing the objection against the proposed assessment of the premises in dispute which was assessed at Rs. 5,75,49,716/-. The petitioner filed the detailed replies, which are Annexures 10 and 11 to the writ petition, stating therein that the bungalow in dispute is being used by his family members for the residential purposes and further stating that there are 24 tenants in the outhouses giving the details of rent which is being paid by them.

(2.) By means of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 25.7.2009, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, by which for the period 2008-09, a sum of Rs. 14,72,366/- is being demanded. The contention of the petitioner was that without passing any order, the demand was patently illegal.

(3.) Counter-affidavit was called. Today, counter-affidavit has been filed annexing a copy of the assessment order as Annexure C.A.I. and learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that against the said order appeal lies under the Act.