GOODYEAR INDIA LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersenessly, the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Faridabad Complex Administration, Ballabgarh Zone, Ballabgarh (Haryana) (respondent No. 2) assessed the house tax of the property of the petitioner-M/s Goodyear India Limited (for brevity "petitioner-company"), in view of the provisions of The Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 ( herein after referred to be as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1989-90 and issued impugned notice dated 22.06.1989 raising a demand of Rs. 1,30,000/- (Annexure P2)

(2.) Aggrieved by the demand notice (Annexure P2), the petitioner-company filed the appeal (Annexure P3), which was dismissed as time barred, by the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurgaon, vide impugned order dated 22.03.1991(Annexure P4).

(3.) The petitioner-company did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned notice (Annexure P-2) and order (Annexure P4), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the ground that although, the appeal filed by it from the date of issuance of notice was well within time but the same was wrongly dismissed, being time barred by the Appellate Authority. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, the petitioner-company sought the quashment of demand notice (Annexure P2) & the impugned order (Annexure P4), in the manner indicated herein above.