JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):- Grindlays Bank Ltd. was amalgamated with Standard Chartered Bank. It was owner of property Unit No.360/2/XIII situated at the Mall, Amritsar. According to the petitioner, this property is self occupied and portion of the property being residential, has been allotted to the Manager as a licensee. It is the case of the petitioner that on 1.3.1981, a notice under Section 103 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation, Act, 1976 (in short the Act) was received by the petitioner Bank. In the notice, it was proposed that the annual rental value of the property is to be determined as Rs.6,58,993/- for the year 1983-84. Petitioner filed objections to the notice. The assessing authority dealt with the objections raised and came to the conclusion that the annual value of the property was Rs.4,61,646 and accordingly house tax was imposed. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner has filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal. 2. Shri Vishal Garg, Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank, has stated that his case is covered by the ratio of law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Banarasi Dass Mahajan v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1990(1) RCR (Rent) 169. Counsel has stated that the municipal authorities have committed a grave error in dealing with the case of the petitioner under Section 93(c) of the Act whereas in the ratio of law laid down by the Full Bench in Banarasi Dass Mahajan’s case (supra) for assessment of the tax, petitioner’s case was required to be dealt with under Section 93(b) of the Act. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondent – Municipal Corporation has stated that no objection to this effect was submitted before the house tax assessment. It is further submitted that even this argument was not raised before the Appellate Authority. Counsel for the respondent states that had this point been raised before the Appellate Authority, the same would have been dealt with in accordance with the provisions of law. It is further submitted that even this argument was not raised before the Appellate Authority. Counsel for the respondent states that had this point been raised before the Appellate Authority, the same would have been dealt with in accordance with the provisions of law. Counsel for the respondent-Corporation further states that in the year 1994, an amendment has been carried out in the Punjab Municipal Act changing the definition of “annual rent” and the amendment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court, cannot be pari materia applied to the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act and to the facts of the present case. 4. On the observation made by this Court that the amendment cannot be applied retrospectively, Counsel for the respondent has stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the amendment will apply retrospectively to all pending cases pertaining to Punjab Municipal Act. Counsel for the respondent has made a very fair offer that to redress any kind of grievance, still the Appellate Authority can examine the argument raised by the petitioner and in case the petitioner submits additional grounds of appeal, the Appellate Authority shall consider the entire gamut and pass a speaking order dealing with the objections and the arguments raised by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also prayed that the matter be remitted back to the Appellate Authority. 5. In view of the request made by Counsel for the parties, order passed by the Appellate Authority, Annexure P-4, is set aside; the petitioner is permitted to submit additional grounds of appeal to the Appellate Authority within one month from today. Subject to deposit of Rs.3.00 lacs by the petitioner-Bank, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. Needless to say that the additional grounds of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority. Similarly, respondent-Corporation shall be at liberty to raise all arguments available before the Appellate Authority. 7. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. -----------------