JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, ACJ. (Oral)- The Appellant-Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by an order dated 8th December, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge in CW No. 8414/2003. 2. The Respondents were assessed to property tax in the assessment year 19961997. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment made by the Municipal Corporation, the Respondents preferred an appeal to the learned Additional District Judge being H.T.A. No. 440/2001. By an order dated 1st April, 2002 the learned Additional District Judge decided the appeal keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh & Ors. v. MCD, AIR 19S5 SC 339 and Lt. Col. P.R. Chaudhary (Retd.) v. MCD, IV (2000) SLT 52= 2000 (4) SCC 577 . The assessment was set aside and the matter remanded back to the Joint Assessor and Collector for redetermination of the rateable value. 4. Against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the Municipal Corporation preferred a writ petition which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 8th December, 2003. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was belated and also on the ground that the matter was in fact covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh and Lt. Col. P.R. Chaudhary. It was also held that the principle of parity in making an assessment towards property tax would apply even after the passing of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Determination of Rateable Value) Bye-laws, 1994. 5. During the pendency of the appeal before us, the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short the DMC Act) was amended in 2003 with effect from 1st April, 2004. We are concerned with the introduction of Section 116-G in the DMC Act. This reads as follows: "116-G. Transitory provisions-( 1) Not with standing anything contained in this Act, as amended by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003, a tax on vacant land or covered space of building or both, levied under this Act immediately before the date of coming into force of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003. This reads as follows: "116-G. Transitory provisions-( 1) Not with standing anything contained in this Act, as amended by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003, a tax on vacant land or covered space of building or both, levied under this Act immediately before the date of coming into force of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003. shall, on the coming into force of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003, be deemed to be the tax on such vacant land or covered space of building or both/levied under this Act as amended by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003, and shall continue to be in force until such tax is revised in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as amended by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (I), where assessment has not been finalized in respect of a vacant land or covered space of a building or both, on the date of the commencement of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003 the assessee may have such land or building or both, as the case may be, assessed on the basis of the annual value." 6. A perusal of Sub-section (1) of the above section shows that where tax has been levied (that is to say the assessment has been finalized) before the statutory amendment, then that tax shall be deemed to be the tax levied even after the statutory amendment. Additionally, the tax levied shall continue to be in force until it is revised in accordance with the statutory amendment. In other words, an assessment made before the statutory amendment would be operative until it is revised. 7. Sub-section (2) of the above section provides (in contrast) that where the assessment has not been finalized, then the assessment may be made on the basis of the annual value of the property which is a post-statutory amendment concept. In other words, where an assessment has not been finalized, an assessee would be entitled to take the benefit of the statutory amendment and have the assessment made on the annual value of the property. 8. To appreciate the scheme of assessment laid down by the statutory amendment made in 2003/ it is also necessary to read Section 169(1) of the DMC Act. This is as follows: "169. 8. To appreciate the scheme of assessment laid down by the statutory amendment made in 2003/ it is also necessary to read Section 169(1) of the DMC Act. This is as follows: "169. Appeal against assessment, etc.-(l) An appeal against the levy or assessment or revision of assessment of any tax under this Act shall lie to the Municipal Taxation Tribunal constituted under this section: Provided that the full amount of the property tax shall be paid before filing any appeal: Provided further that the Municipal Taxation Tribunal may, with the approval of the District Judge of Delhi, also take up any case for which any appeal may be pending before the Court of such District Judge: Provided also that any appeal pending before the Court of such District Judge shall be transferred to the Municipal Taxation Tribunal for disposal, if requested by the applicant for the settlement thereof on the basis of annual value. (2) to (5) xxx xxx xxx" 9. It is clear from the third proviso to Section 169(1) of the DMC Act that even where an assessment is finalized, but an appeal is pending, an assessee is entitled to ask for a decision in the appeal on the annual value basis. In other words, even at an appellate stage, an assessee is empowered to ask for a decision on the basis of the annual value of the property. 10. Therefore, three situations are postulated: Firstly, where an assessment has been finalized and no appeal is filed against it, then the assessment will continue to be operative until it is revised. Secondly, where an assessment has been finalized but an appeal has been filed against it/ then as per the third proviso to Section 169(1) of the DMC Act, the assessee can ask for an assessment on the basis of the annual value of the property. Thirdly, where the assessment is not finalized, then as per Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act, the assessee can ask for an assessment on the basis of the annual value of the property. 11. It appears to us that the intention of the Legislature was to commence the levy of property tax with effect from 1st April, 2004 on a clean slate - in respect of all pending assessments and in respect 01 all appeals pending against finalized assessment orders. 11. It appears to us that the intention of the Legislature was to commence the levy of property tax with effect from 1st April, 2004 on a clean slate - in respect of all pending assessments and in respect 01 all appeals pending against finalized assessment orders. All assessments in such cases would be made after 1st April, 2004 on the option of the assessee, on the basis of the annual value of the property. If the statutory amendment is read and understood in this light, it is clear that Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act not only entitles an assessee to seek an assessment on the annual value basis, in an assessment not yet finalized; but it also empowers the assessee in making such a demand as a matter of right. 12. Looked at from another point of view, if Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act does not so empower an assessee, then not only would the purpose of that section be lost, but a rather strange and anomalous situation would be created - namely, that in a pending appeal against a finalized assessment, an assessee can demand an assessment on the basis of the annual value of the property (third proviso to Section 169(1) of the DMC Act) but in a pending assessment, the assessee cannot demand ..... an assessment on the basis of the annual value. Surely, such an odd situation is not postulated by the law or by the Legislature. 13. In the light of the above, learned Counsel for the Respondents handed over an application to us in Court today. The application is taken on record and the Registry should number it. It is stated in the application that the Respondents have moved a petition before the Joint Assessor and Collector for treating their case for property tax assessment under Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act, that is, for making the assessment in accordance with the annual value concept introduced with effect from 1st April, 2004. 14. While opposing this application, learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation says that the provisions of Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act are not applicable to assessments finalized before the annual value concept was introduced. It is submitted that the assessment in the case of the Respondents was finalized by the Joint Assessor and Collector way back and, therefore, Section 116G(2) of the DMC Act would not be applicable. It is submitted that the assessment in the case of the Respondents was finalized by the Joint Assessor and Collector way back and, therefore, Section 116G(2) of the DMC Act would not be applicable. 15. In our opinion there is an error in the submission made by learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. The error is in appreciating- the term "finalized" assessment. An assessment in the context of Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act means an assessment that has been-accepted by the assessee and is not the subject matter of a statutory appeal. It does not include an assessment set aside in appeal nor does it include an assessment challenged by way of a statutory appeal. That being so, the assessment made by the Joint Assessor and Collector and set aside by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 1st April, 2002 is not a "finalized" assessment within the meaning of Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act. The assessment in the case of the Respondents having been set aside and remanded back for re-determination of the rateable value by the learned Additional District Judge clearly indicates that the assessment was wide open. In that sense, it was not "finalized" insofar as the provisions of Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act are concerned. 16. According to learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, notwithstanding this, once the assessment is made by the Joint Assessor and Collector, it must be taken to be finalized for the purposes of Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act. This submission would be correct if the assessment order is accepted by the assessee or is not challenged in appeal, but in the present case where the assessment order itself has been set aside with a direction by the learned Additional District Judge to re-determine the rateable value (and no fresh order has been passed by the Joint Assessor and Collector in terms of the directions given by the Additional District Judge) it cannot be said that the assessment has been finalised at least at the hands of Joint Assessor and Collector. 17. Our attention has been drawn to the Minutes of a meeting held by the Commissioner on 15th April, 2004. 17. Our attention has been drawn to the Minutes of a meeting held by the Commissioner on 15th April, 2004. In para 4 of the Minutes it is recorded that an assessee would have the option of choosing the Unit Area Method (annual value of the property) or any previous method of assessment in cases which are remanded back as on 1st April, 2004. Para 4 of the Minutes reads as follows: "4. Re-opening of ex parte cases/assessment cases-The assessee shall have the option of choosing U.A.M. or previous method of assessment in cases which are remanded back or ex parte cases or pending assessments as on 1.4.2004." 18. It is quite clear from the above that even the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation understood Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act to mean that all pending assessments, whether at the original stage or pending as a result of having been set aside or otherwise remanded by a superior authority, would be assessments that are not "finalized" for the purposes of Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act. In respect of such assessments, assessee would be entitled to opt for having the property tax assessed on the basis of Unit Area Method. 19. Learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation submits that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15th April, 2004 were subsequently withdrawn. Be that as it may, it really makes no difference insofar as the present case is concerned because the Minutes indicate the initial view taken by the Commissioner when the statutory amendment was introduced. That there may have been a change of opinion subsequently does not change the legal position as far as we are concerned. In our opinion, the view expressed in the Minutes-represents the correct legal position. 20. In the present case, the assessee has now opted for determination of property tax payable by him in terms of the Unit Area Method. This is in consonance with the option available to him under Section 116-G(2) of the DMC Act. Accordingly, while leaving open the issues raised by the Municipal Corporation in this appeal, we direct the Joint Assessor and Collector, in view of the changed circumstances, to assess the property of the Respondents towards tax in accordance with the Unit Area Method (annual value basis) for the assessment year under consideration. 21. Accordingly, while leaving open the issues raised by the Municipal Corporation in this appeal, we direct the Joint Assessor and Collector, in view of the changed circumstances, to assess the property of the Respondents towards tax in accordance with the Unit Area Method (annual value basis) for the assessment year under consideration. 21. The Joint Assessor and Collector will complete the assessment within a period of three months from today. The Respondents will appear before the Joint Assessor and Collector for directions on 10th May, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. 22. With these observations and directions the appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.