JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghosh, J.: This petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia challenging an order dated July 21, 2000 passed by the Hearing Officer in respect of the Annual Valuation of the premises No. 18, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) commencing from 4th quarter of 1986-87 and all subsequent Annual Valuations determined by the said Hearing Officer, and further from giving effect or further effect to the said order dated 21st July, 2000 passed by the said Hearing Officer and further for cancellation and for setting aside of the said order passed by the said Hearing Officer. 2. It is also challenged in the writ petition that the impugned order dated July 21, 2000 forwarded by the letter dated August 25, 2000 is ex facie bad, arbitrary, unreasonable without jurisdiction, contrary to the spirit and intent of the order dated July 16, 1999 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in APOT No. 578 of 1999 and also the order dated 19th July, 2000 passed by the Single Judge, in W.P. No. 1515 of 2000. 3. The facts of the case are as follows:- The premises in question was constructed during the assessment period 2nd quarter, 1964-65. The first assessment was made in respect of the said premises in question with effect from 2nd quarter 1964-65 in the name of the recorded owner M/s. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Limited. Subsequent thereto, on 11th August, 1972 M/s. Hope India Limited became the owner and continued to be the recorded owner in respect of the said premises uptil now. The said premises came under the ownership of M/s. Multiplates Business Limited and Poddar Udyog Limited and who are claiming themselves to be the owner thereof. No steps have been taken by the said M/s. Multiplates Business Limited and Poddar Udyog Limited to get their names mutated in the records of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CMC). 4. At the said premises in question construction of a building was completed stage by stage and from time to time and after such completion, portions of the said premises were let out to tenants and accordingly assessments were made with the completion of the portions of the said building. The assessment took place from time to time and further general re-valuation was made in accordance with the Rules of the CMC. 5. The assessment took place from time to time and further general re-valuation was made in accordance with the Rules of the CMC. 5. The Annual General Valuation was determined by the CMC with effect from 4th quarter of 1968-69. In or about 1973 the arrears in respect of previous periods were finalised upto 4th quarter 1968-69 and the determined annual valuation was Rs. 18,45,369/-. However, determination in respect of annual valuation from 1st quarter 1969-70 could not be finalised and the same were kept pending. Thereafter, the valuation for different periods either intermediate or by way of general re-valuation for the period 1st quarter 1969-70, 2nd quarter 1969-70, 3rd quarter 1969-70, 2nd quarter 1970-71, 1st quarter 1971-72, 1st quarter 1972-73 and 1st quarter 1975-76 were made upon due notice to the owner/assessee and upon considering their objections. The assesses preferred an appeal against all the valuations, excepting the annual valuation determined for the period from 1st quarter 1975-76. 6. Subsequently the valuation were made for the period 3rd quarter: 1980-81, 1st quarter 1981-82 and 3rd. quarter 1983-84. Hqwever, the owner/assessee had grievance against the deduction on account of service charges from gross annual rent in respect of the said premises. The owners assessees claimed a deduction to the extent of 30% from the gross annual rent on account of service charges and the said unusual claim compelled the respondent Corporation to make an enquiry at the instant of the concerned Hearing Authority and upon enquiry it transpired that the owner/assessee were not entitled to such deduction inasmuch as the service rendered by them to their tenants restricted to the supply of only 300 Fans. In that view of the matter the Hearing Authority for assessment period 1st quarter 1975-76 allowed 10% deduction from the gross annual rent as permissible under the Act and that apart, the assessees were allowed 10% deduction on account of Service Charges also. 7. The annual valuation in respect of the said premises having been determined in accordance with law for the assessment period from 1st quarter 1969-70 to 1st quarter 1972-73, the assessment books were corrected on 18th August, 1992 for purpose of issuing rate bills: The decided annual valuation for the assessment period from 1st quarter 1975-76 was also posted in the assessment book on 15th December, 1984. It may be mentioned that the annual valuation determined for the said period from 1st quarter 1975-76 was Rs. 37,06,618/-. 8. After such determination the assessee M/s., Hope India Limited made an application on 29th. November, 1984 for further consideration of the said valuation thereby raising some objections against the subsequent assessments relating to assessment period from 3rd quarter 1980-81. 9. Further hearing was granted by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) on 23rd December, 1983 and the valuations were finally decided with effect from 1st quarter 1975-76 to 3rd quarter 1983-84 and the decided valuations were Rs. 34,98,944/-, Rs. 53,31,027/-, Rs. 55,80,919/- and Rs. 61,06,444/- in respect of the above periods respectively, and the books were corrected to give effect to the decided valuations and bills were duly issued and/or presented regularly. 10. Inspite of such re-consideration, whenever the Corporation approached the owners of the said premises for realisation of its huge unpaid dues the owner/assessee represents, unless they are allowed a deduction on account of service charges to the extent of additional 22.5% except what was specially allowed earlier, they were not in a position to pay the arrears. However, some small payments were made in suspense account towards the huge arrears. The Municipal authorities upon receipt of such payment duly adjusted the payment against some bills. 11. In or about August, 1987 a settlement was arrived at between the Municipal Corporation and the writ petitioner company and the terms of the settlement were as follows:- a) The outstanding dues upto the assessment period 2nd quarter 1987-88 which accumulated to the extent of Rs. 2,60,96,478.38P. would be paid at a time in advance by the assessee. b) The assessee would withdraw all the cases pending in Courts of law. c) The service charges as agreed by and between the parties had been accepted by the Corporation. d) After the payment, as agreed between the parties, were made necessary hearing for determination of annual value would be given to the assessee to regularies the matter once for all. 12. Accordingly, a demand chart was prepared upto 2nd quarter 1987-88 and the said Chart of Demand was duly accepted by the assessee who put their signature on the same. 12. Accordingly, a demand chart was prepared upto 2nd quarter 1987-88 and the said Chart of Demand was duly accepted by the assessee who put their signature on the same. However, since the said Demand Chart was computed on the basis of agreed valuation from 1st quarter 1969-70 to 3rd quarter 1983-84, the Municipal Authorities asked the assessee concerned to pay the arrear dues upto 2nd quarter 1987-88 on the basis of the settlement arrived at in August, 1987. But the assessee concerned did not comply with the said agreed terms of the amicable settlement fully by paying the entire outstanding dues as agreed upon. 13. At the instance of the assessee the CMC subsequently entered into a further settlement on March 21, 1990 and it was proposed by the Mayor that Deputy Municipal Commissioner (revenue Head-Quarter) (hereinafter referred to as DMC(R-HQ) may hear the case (regarding the agreement) under section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 upto 2nd quarter of 1987-88 and also for the subsequent period and it was agreed that the following steps to be taken by the parties. The said agreement is reproduced hereunder:- a) Payment of Rs. 50 lacs immediately to be kept in Suspense Account; b) Payment of Rs. 22.94 lacs by 31.3.90 to be kept in Suspense Account; c) Balance of Rs. 13 lacs in 2 instalments in April and May, 1980 to be kept in Suspense Account. The assessee will pay the bills for 3/87-88 as and when issued within the stipulated period according to law; d) The other pending hearing shall be expeditiosly taken up; e) The assessee shall undertake to withdraw all pending Municipal Appeal Cases; f) The assessee shall put up charts of area occupied by individual occupiers and rents thereof as per standing procedure after accepting the valuation decided under section 192. Thereafter he will be supplied with details surcharge payable by each of the tenants to facilities realisation of surcharge by the assessees; g) The liability of payment of surcharge lies on the owners as per Act and CMC has the authority to adjust the Suspense Account deposited suo motu; h) Notices of demand will be withdrawn until further orders of receipt of Rs. 50 lacs in Pay Order. Calcutta Municipal Corporation is authorised to re-notices if (b) and (c) are not fulfilled and take follow up actions as per law. 14. 50 lacs in Pay Order. Calcutta Municipal Corporation is authorised to re-notices if (b) and (c) are not fulfilled and take follow up actions as per law. 14. The said agreement dated 21st March, 1990 was signed on behalf of the assessee and the CMC. 15. In terms of the 2nd agreement, the Municipal Authorities gave a hearing to the assessee and determined the valuation once again from 1st quarter 1969-70 to 3rd quarter 1983-84. In terms of the 2nd agreement dated March 21, 1990. Supplementary Rate Bills were sent to the assessee on the basis of the agreed valuation as accepted by the assessee on 10th August, 1987 and it was finally decided by the DMC(R-HQ). 16. Inspite of the presentation of the said bill and despite communication, the owner/assessee did not pay the dues to the Municipal Authorities and the authorities had to send 3 demand notices to the owners for a total demand of Rs. 3,60,81,142.86P. The petitioner duly admitted the receipts of the said supplementary bills. According to the petitioner, the Municipal Authorities refused to re-hear the annual valuation for 4th quarter 1986-87 in breach of the said settlement. 17. It is further admitted by the Corporation that it was made clear to the assessee at the time of serving the said demand that after adjustment of all the deposits made by them in the suspense account upto 1st July, 1991 a balance amount of Rs. 13,60,296.37P. was lying in their credit. 18. In these circumstances a writ application was filed by the petitioner in this Hon'ble Court. The said writ application being Matter No. 4514 of 1991 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Trial Judge and the petitioner company preferred an appeal from the said order being an Appeal No. APOT No. 578 of 1996 which was disposed of by an order passed by the Hon'ble Appeal Court on July 16, 1999 inter alia, directing the petitioner company to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.5 crore and also directing the Hearing Officer to consider whether the petitioner company was entitled to any special service charge/discount, maintenance charge and waiver of interest and penalty. 19. The Hon'ble Appeal Court was also pleased to direct that the appellant deserved a fresh hearing in so far as the past liabilities starting from the 4th quarter 1986-87 is concerned. The Appeal Court was pleased to pass the fol. 19. The Hon'ble Appeal Court was also pleased to direct that the appellant deserved a fresh hearing in so far as the past liabilities starting from the 4th quarter 1986-87 is concerned. The Appeal Court was pleased to pass the fol. lowing order:- "THE COURT: We have heard the learned Advocate for the parties extensively. We have also considered the import of the order dated 18th September, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge against the appellant, who have preferred by present appeal. On consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter we find that the main relief which are appellants and sought from the writ Court was about their having been denied a proper hearing, at the hands of the Hearing Officer and on some ancillary matters, such as the reduction towards services/maintenance charges at the rate of 20% of the gross value as against these specific reliefs claimed by the petitioner-appellant what we find in that the learned Single Judge merely directed the Municipal Auditor to dig out the accounts and determine, based on the past accounts, the extent of liabilities and ultimately asked the petitioners appellants to pay amounts in question. From what we have been we find that the appellants deserve a fresh hearing in so far as the past liabilities starting from the fourth (4th) quarter of the assessment year 1986-87 is concerned. In super-session of the order dated 18th September, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge therefore we dispose of this appeal and direct as under:- 1. The appellants/petitioners shall deposit by way of "on account payment" for the past arrears a sum of Rs. 1.5 crores with the respondent-corporation with in a period of two months from today. This amount shall be kept in suspense account and would be liable to adjustment, depending upon outcome of the hearing to be given to the appellants. 2. The concerned Hearing Officer is directed to give a fresh hearing/grant re-hearing to the appellants with respect to determination of the liabilities starting from 4th quarter of the assessment year 1986-87. In the course of such hearing, the Hearing Officer shall, apart from determining the tax liability, also consider whether the appellants are entitled to any reduction on account of the service charges maintenance charges, as claimed by the appellants. In the course of such hearing, the Hearing Officer shall, apart from determining the tax liability, also consider whether the appellants are entitled to any reduction on account of the service charges maintenance charges, as claimed by the appellants. The appellants say that they were entitled to 20% reduction on this account and that the Corporation has granted such account and that the Corporation has granted such benefit to some others similarly placed. The respondents say that they are not entitled to any such discount because section 174(1) of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 does not contain any prescription for such reduction and that there is a standard reduction prescribed which is at the rate of 10%. Notwithstanding these rival contentions 'we direct the Hearing Officer to consider, in the light of the law applicable on the subject whether the appellants are entitled to any discount on this account. The Hearing Officer shall also determine the extent of any liability towards penalty, surcharge or interest. While he is adjudicating on this question he will consider whether the appellants are entitled to any waiver or dispensation of any liability on such account. After grant of opportunity of hearing, the Hearing Officer shall pass a detailed speaking order and communicate the same to the appellants within a period of 3 months from the date the appellants deposit the amount of Rs. 1.5 crores. However, the appellants shall keep on depositing the current tax at the rate of which they were paying prior to fourth quarter 1986-87. There shall be an unconditional stay of recovery for a period of two months from today. If the appellants deposit the amount of Rs. 1.5 crores during this period of two months the stay shall continue until the Hearing Officer communicates the order pursuant to this directions. If, however, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1.5 crores is not deposited within two months from today, the stay order shall stand vacated automatically and without any reference to the bench immediately on the expiry of two months from today. All such payments made however, shall be without prejudice to the ultimate rights of the parties. The appeal is treated as on the day's list and both the appeal and the application are disposed of accordingly. All undertakings are discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Liberty to mention. All such payments made however, shall be without prejudice to the ultimate rights of the parties. The appeal is treated as on the day's list and both the appeal and the application are disposed of accordingly. All undertakings are discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Liberty to mention. All parties are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertaking." 20. In these circumstances, the valuation as made by the Hearing Officer on 11th February, 1988 for the 4th quarter 1986-87 fixing the annual valuation at Rs. 1,21,61,210/- remain unchaged and further in view of non-compliance of the terms of the agreement and for not challenging the said valuation before the Assessment Tribunal as per sections 189(5) and 189(6) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, the said valuation with effect from 4th quarter 1986-87 became final under section 190 of the said Act and the petitioners became liable to pay rates and taxes and the petitioners became liable to pay the rates and taxes on that basis. However, the writ petitioners without taking any steps and/or complying the terms of agreement moved a writ petition in 1991 being matter No. 4534 of 1991 and the said application was disposed of by an order dated December 6, 1996. 21. According to the petitioners, the Hearing Officer No. VII by its impugned order dated July 21, 2000 held that the Hon'ble Division Bench had not set aside the annual valuation from 4th quarter 1986-87. So there was no scope for re-hearing and refused to interfere with the annual valuation. The Hearing Officer also refused to allow special service charge/ discount and refused to waive penalty or interest. 22. According to the petitioner, the contention of C.M.C. that the petitioner company did not make payment pursuant to the agreement entered into in the year 1990 and the CMC was not obliged to comply with its part and give rehearing for the said quarter (i.e. 4th quarter 1983-84). Special service charge/ discount of 20% over the statutory discount of 10% is not permissible under the Act of 1980 and it was never granted to the petitioner company. 23. Special service charge/ discount of 20% over the statutory discount of 10% is not permissible under the Act of 1980 and it was never granted to the petitioner company. 23. According to CMC, the annual valuation for 4th quarter 1986-87 fixed on February 11, 1988 has become final and further by the order dated July 16, 1999 the Hon'ble Appeal Court only directed the Hearing Officer to re-hear the matter to determine tax liability and not to re-assess the annual valuation from 4th quarter 1983-84. 24. Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner company submitted that the petitioner company paid a sum of Rs. 85.94 lacs. Pursuant to the agreement the IMC(R-HQ) gave are-hearing of the annual valuation up to 3rd quarter 1983-84, although it was agreed that the re-hearing should be given also for the subsequent period which was not complied with by the CMC. According to him, re-hearing was allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 25. He further contended that special service charge/ discount of 20% was allowed to another building known as "Todi Mansion" pursuant to a decision of this Hon'ble Court reporting in 69 CWN 237 (Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs. India Exchange Limited). 26. He further contended that the petitioner company was being discriminated and/or victimised for having had approached this Hon'ble Court. 27. He further contended that the order of Hearing Officer VII of the CMC is binding upon them. He further contended that there is no practical difference between section 168(1) of the 1951 Act, and section 174(1) of the 1980 Act. In support of such submission he relied upon a judgement reported in 95 CWN 1 (Roma Sur vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation). He also submitted that a benefit granted consistently generate a legitimate procedural expectation, which operate in the domain of public law and is enforceable. In support of such submission he relied upon a judgement reported in (1984)3 All England Report 935 (Council of Civil Service Unions and Ors. vs. Minister for the Civil Service). 28. He further contended that it is incorrect to allege that special service charge/discount over the statutory deduction of 10% is not permissible under the 1980 Act. The 1980 Act does not contain any bar. 29. vs. Minister for the Civil Service). 28. He further contended that it is incorrect to allege that special service charge/discount over the statutory deduction of 10% is not permissible under the 1980 Act. The 1980 Act does not contain any bar. 29. Further Hon'ble Division Bench by its order dated July 16, 1999 directed the Hearing Officer to consider in the light of the law applicable on the subject whether the appellants are entitled to any discount on account of special service charge/discount of 20%. Precedent is also has force of law and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation is bound and obliged to grant such special service charge/discount in the gross annual rent while arriving at Annual Valuation. 30. He further contended that the Annual Valuation for 4th quarter 1986-87 fixed on February 11, 1988 could not become final as it was agreed between the parties that re-hearing should be given to the petitioner and further Annual Valuations were substantially reduced upon re-hearing given on June 20, 1991 upto 3rd quarter 1983-84. 31. He further contended that although the annual valuation of the premises (18, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta) effective from 3rd quarter 1983-84 till 3rd quarter 1986-87 was revised from Rs. 61,06,444/- to Rs. 57,45,123/- the annual valuation effective from the subsequent period i.e. 4th quarter 1986-87 was, however, left unrevised at Rs. 1,21,61,2101-. This was so done on an erroneous basis as if the said valuation did not warrant any revision which, however, did not meet with the approval of the Division Bench which directed a fresh hearing "starting from 4th quarter of the assessment year 1986-87". 32. He also submitted that still further, by notice dated October 13, 1999 the Calcutta Municipal Corporation intimated the writ petitioner the date of "hearing of the objection on assessment of the premises in question" in terms of the order of the Appeal Court dated July 16, 1999. The submissions that the Annual Valuation with effect from 4/86-87 fixed on February 11, 1988 had become final is mere submission from the bar, afterthought and should be ignored being contrary to records. 33. He further contended that the Hon'ble Appeal Court by its order dated July 16, 1999 directed the Municipal Authorities to give a fresh hearing and/or grant re-hearing. 33. He further contended that the Hon'ble Appeal Court by its order dated July 16, 1999 directed the Municipal Authorities to give a fresh hearing and/or grant re-hearing. By the agreements dated August 17, 1987 and March 21, 1990 the Calcutta Municipal Corporation agreed to give re-hearing by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (R-HQ). 34. He also submitted that by its hearing notice dated October 13, 1999 given by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Appeal Court dated July 16, 1999 the Calcutta Municipal Corporation invited "objection on assessment" i.e. the assessment was to be finalised by such hearing. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation understood the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench correctly and the theory of liability is nothing but submissions from the bar and unsupported by records. 35. He also contended that further annual valuation could be arrived at only after allowing or dis-allowing special service charge/discount on gross annual rent. Unless such special service charge/discount is decided, the annual valuation cannot be assessed. The Hon'ble Division Bench in accordance with the agreements between the parties directed the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to give re-hearing, fresh hearing and/or to make a fresh assessment from 4th quarter of 1986-87 onwards. 36. He also submitted that a fine distinction is sought to be made by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and unwarranted reliance placed on the expression "liability" used in the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. The special service charge/discount is the basis to assess annual valuation. The unwarranted reliance of the expression "liability" is ex facie absurd because only after deciding special service charge/discount on gross annual rent. Annual Valuation can be assessed and only thereupon "liability" can be determined. In other words, the provision for special service charge/discount is directly referable to and/or is the basis of the assessment of the annual valuation and not to the rate of liability as such. 37. Mr. Roy contended that the Hearing Officer-VII proceeded on a fallacious premise that he cannot revise the previous assessment as the same was not expressly set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench which has the effect of setting at naught the objects and purpose of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. The entire exercise of re-hearin/fresh hearing is thereby rendered infructuous as the Hearing Officer considered himself incapable of even considering far less granting the relief sought for. 38. The entire exercise of re-hearin/fresh hearing is thereby rendered infructuous as the Hearing Officer considered himself incapable of even considering far less granting the relief sought for. 38. According to him, thus the purported hearing by the Hearing Officer-VII is not the one envisaged by the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench and the impugned order of the Hearing Officer-VII being contrary to the order of the Hearing Officer-VII being contrary to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench and as such the same is null and void, ineffective and not binding on the petitioner company. 39. He also submitted that the submissions by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation are contrary to the facts and records and even contrary to their own affidavit and clearly afterthought. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated July 21, 2000 passed by the Hearing Officer-VII should be set aside and to meet the ends of justice, fresh hearing should be directed to be given by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Rev.-HQ) as in the earlier cases from 4th quarter of 1986-87 onwards and the petitioner company be allowed to pay the rates and taxes at the old rate in accordance with order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated July 16, 1999 till a proper hearing is given. 40. He further contended that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner-company had preferred an appeal before the Mayor-in-Council. Accordingly, he submitted that the Hon'ble Mayor may be directed to hear and dispose of the Appeal within a given time. 41. Mr. Das Adhikari appearing on behalf of the Corporation relied upon a judgement reported in 1998(2) CLJ 87 (Bengal Properties vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation) and contended that the valuation for 4th quarter 198687 as decided by the Hearing Officer on 11th February, 1988 have become final under section 190 since no appeal was preferred under section 189(5) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act and further question of reopening the same does not arise on the basis of the agreement since the petitioners did not comply with the terms of the agreement. 42. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Appeal Court did never set aside the determination of annual valuation with effect from 4th quarter 1986-87, nor directed to re-determine the annual valuation from the said period. 42. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Appeal Court did never set aside the determination of annual valuation with effect from 4th quarter 1986-87, nor directed to re-determine the annual valuation from the said period. On the contrary Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to direct that the tax liability with effect from 4th quarter of 1986-87 is to be determined upon giving rehearing to the petitioners. 43. According to him, the same cannot be treated as re-hearing of the annual valuation settled by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. He further contended that in that case the Hon'ble Appeal Court would not have been directed to determine the extent of liability towards the penalty, surcharge or interest. 44. He further contended that Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act contains no provision for presenting advance bills for amounts not yet due and a bill is required to be presented only after the rate for a particular quarter becomes due. The proviso to sub-rule(1) of Rule 33 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987 which provides for advance bills to be set is, therefore, clearly beyond the scope of the provisions contained in the statute itself. Section 216(1) of 1980 Act, read with Rule 33 of the CMC (Taxation) Rules, 1987, is rather clear on the point that a bill has to be presented to the rate payer within specified time when the rate payable for a quarter becomes due and, thereafter, the liability to pay is converted into a recoverable due on presentation of such bill. Non-payment of the dues after presentation of the bill gives rise to the consequences mentioned in sections 217, 218, 220, 221, 221A, 221B, 223 and 228 of the 1980 Act. In support of such contention he relied upon a judgement reported in 1994(2) Cal LJ 491 (Indian Hotels Co. vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation). 45. He also drew my attention to section 217 of the said Act which deals with the notice of demand, notice fee, interest and penalty. He also contended that section 214 of the said Act provides procedure to recovery of tax and one of such procedure is by presentation of the bill. Section 216(1) has got two parts-the first part is that a tax become due and the second part is a recovery of the bill by presentation. Therefore, he contended that the presentation of bills follows the amount regarding tax. Section 216(1) has got two parts-the first part is that a tax become due and the second part is a recovery of the bill by presentation. Therefore, he contended that the presentation of bills follows the amount regarding tax. Section 217 of the said Act provides payment of bill presented within 30 days from the date of presentation. If such bill is not paid on presentation, then only appeal will abate; He further relied upon a judgement reported in 1996(1) CLT 342 (Bejoy Chand Mogha vs. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation) in support of his contention. 46. He further contended that had it been the case of re-determination or fresh determination of annual valuation with effect from 4th quarter 1986-87 the Appeal Court would have directed the Municap Authority to calculate the rebate which the petitioners would have been entitled to under section 215 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act and in that event the question of determination of interest and penalty would not have arisen at all. 47. He further contended that the determination of tax liability under no circumstances could be termed or claimed as re-determination of annual valuation or determination of annual valuation afresh. The word 'liability' or 'tax liability' is never aynomimus to the word 'annual valuation'. 48. He further submitted that in view of the Hon'ble Appeal Court's judgement the Hearing Officer when decided the tax liability with effect from 4th quarter 1986-87 considered the claim of the petitioners as regards 20% rebate on account of service charges/ maintenance charges and have come to a conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to get such reduction since the provisions under sub-section (1) of section 174 does not permit the same. 49. He also contended that so far the interest and penalty is concerned as well as the surcharge, the Hearing Officer determined the same in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Appeal Court and decided the quantum therefor. In that view of the matter the purported claims and/or confusions sought to be created by the petitioners by raising some frivolous pleas, to avoid and/or to stall realisation of huge arrears of accumulated unpaid taxes to the tune of Rs. 12 crores and odd which is increasing day by day, month by month, should be rejected by this Hon'ble Court. 50. 12 crores and odd which is increasing day by day, month by month, should be rejected by this Hon'ble Court. 50. He also contended that the claim of the petitioners on account of service charges, giving some other instances which was decided long back cannot be binding on the Municipal Authorities since such rebate @ 20% is not permissible under section 174(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act and further since once that was done contrary to law cannot be a ground for getting the other on the basis of the said unlawful precedent. In this regard he relied upon a decision reported in J.T. 1995(1) SC 445 (Chandigarh Administration & Anr. vs. Jagjit Singh & Anr. Etc.) and specifically relied on the following passage, which is reproduced hereunder:- "Mere fact that respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be a ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the basis of discrimination. The order in that case may be legal or illegal but it has to be investigated and discretionary power of High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interest of law. High Court cannot ignore the law and High Court fell in grave error to allow writ petition." 51. He also contended that the Hearing Officer having passed the order strictly in compliance with the Hon'ble Court's directions, have determined the liability and such determination cannot be questioned in any manner whatsoever. 52. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case the only question at this stage to be decided whether the Hearing Officer has acted in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on July 16, 1999. I have gone through the order passed by the Hearing Officer. It appears that the Hearing Officer after hearing the matter dealt with the points including the discount, maintenance charges as claimed by the petitioner over and above the statutory provisions of 10% interest of the Annual Valuation in respect of the premises in question for the period prior to 4th quarter 1986-87 were granted by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation while such valuation were assessed under section 168(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. After the amendment of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, the gross annual rent is inclusive of all service charges. It further appears that any special allowance over and above the statutory allowance of 10% cannot be allowed to the petitioner in terms of the said Act and further the Hearing Officer in my opinion duly dealt with the matter in accordance with the matter concerning the waiver or dispensation of any liability towards surcharge or interest as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and came to the conclusion in accordance with law. The further fact to be noted in this matter that the annual valuation of the property in question for the 4th quarter of 1986-87 was duly intimated to the petitioner. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal under section 189(5) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act thereby in my opinion there cannot be any doubt that the contention of Mr. Das Adhikari in respect of the annual valuation arrived at by the authorities cannot be reopened at this stage. Furthermore, there was no direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench to the Hearing Officer directing him to give a fresh hearing and to come to the conclusion in respect of the said annual valuation from 4th quarter 1986-87 as sought to be raised before me by Mr. Roy. It further appears that the submissions in respect of the agreement between the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the petitioner also cannot be taken into account for reopening of the said annual valuation as it would be evident from the records that the petitioners did not comply with the terms of the agreement and therefore, I do not have any hesitation to accept the contention of Mr. Das Adhikari in respect thereof. Therefore, the conclusion of the Hearing Officer in my opinion is well reasoned and in terms of the order passed by Hon'ble Appeal Court and there cannot by any reason to interfere with the same. The other point by Mr. Das Adhikari before me that the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to direct to determine the liability of the petitioner. Therefore, the meaning of such liability as contended before me by Mr. Das Adhikari only in respect of the liability as standing in the name of the petitioner as on that date to be determined by the Hearing Officer as contended by Mr. Therefore, the meaning of such liability as contended before me by Mr. Das Adhikari only in respect of the liability as standing in the name of the petitioner as on that date to be determined by the Hearing Officer as contended by Mr. Das Adhikari is also accepted by me. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Hearing Officer and in my opinion the order passed by the Hearing Officer in accordance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 53. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this application is failed and is hereby dismissed. 54. However, I make it clear that since the submissions were made before me that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner company had preferred an appeal before the Mayor-in-Council. This order will not stand in the way to decide the same. Application dismissed.