HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5384 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shivagra holding brief of Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Submission is, the petitioner is being regularly assessed to tax on house property. Relying on copy of the ledger of the property maintained by the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, it has been shown that the petitioner was assessed to tax Rs. 1,40,707/- for the Financial Year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. Those amounts were paid. Later the petitioner was assessed at an enhanced amount Rs. 1,54,777/-. That too was paid. Now for the Financial Year 2024- 2025 acting unilaterally and without issuing any prior notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, to object to the demand, the demand notice for Financial year 2024-2025 has been served demanding property tax Rs. 8,77,132.80/-. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the revised demand has been asssessed on the declaration made by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the instructions do not indicate that notice was issued or proceeding was conducted before the revised demand came to be issued to the petitioner for Financial Year 2024-2025. 4. In view of such facts, no useful purpose may be served by keeping the present writ petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. 5. Rules of natural justice demand fairness in such proceedings. They Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Prabodh Dubey, Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Raghuvansh Misra Endless Services Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) commend that the Nagar Nigam ought to have issued notice to the petitioner proposing to enhance assessed tax from Rs. 1,54,777 to 8,77,132.80/- for Financial Year 2024-2025. Unless the petitioner was given such opportunity and unless he has been heard on the same, it is difficult to accept that the revision of tax has been made fairly or in the manner prescribed under law. To the extent, the revised demand does alter the civil rights of the petitioner, the proceedings remained fundamentally defective. 6. Accordingly, the impugned demand dated 01.02.2025 is set aside with the observation that if the respondent no. 5 proposes to enhance/revise the demand of property tax on the petitioner, it may issue appropriate detailed notice to the petitioner disclosing the basis for revision within a period of two weeks from today. Subject to service of that notice, the petitioner shall have four weeks thereafter to file reply thereto. Subject to compliance being made by the petitioner, the respondent no.5 may fix a short date for personal hearing and pass appropriate reasoned order within a further period of two months therefrom. The proceedings may be concluded necessarily on or before 31st March, 2026. Petitioner undertakes not to seek any undue or long adjournment. 7. The writ petition is thus disposed of. October 14, 2025 Pratima WTAX No. 5384 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad