5.I find from the working sheet that the respondent/Corporation has taken into consideration, the category of rooms, number of rooms, and total rent per day. Further, the tenant usage area, owner usage area and rate for other areas have been taken into consideration. That apart, the size of the rooms has been calculated for arriving at the total area, which, according to the calculation, is 22,595 square feet and the tenant area is 610 square feet. Though the above calculations have been mentioned, there is no clear indication, as to how, the monthly rental value has been calculated. I find certain multiplication details in the working sheet, but the same does not give a clear picture as to how the half yearly tax has been fixed as Rs.89,47,774/-, as contained in the working sheet whereas in the final assessment notice, half yearly property tax has been determined as Rs.89,47,580.00/-. In order to afford an opportunity to the respondent/Corporation to establish before this Court that there was a speaking order passed prior to issuing a demand, the Court directed the learned Additional Advocate General for the Corporation to produce the files. The document contained in the files does not lend any support to the case of the respondent/Corporation and what has been given in the typed set of documents filed by the respondent/Corporation in this writ petition is what that is contained in the file. Thus, I find that after the objections, which were given by the erstwhile writ petitioner, there is no speaking order passed before issuing the impugned final assessment notice. Thus, this Court is fully satisfied that there has been no due consideration of the objections and there is no speaking order, which is enough to hold that the impugned final assessment notice has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
