enforced any demand based on an enhanced annual valuation, which is also
illegal and not maintainable in the eye of law.
(7) On the next date, that is, September 2, 2017, the petitioner No. 1
submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3/The Chief Manager
(Revenue) (South), expressing her grievances as to the non-consideration of
her written objection by the Hearing Officer. Allegedly, the said letter has
also not drawn any consideration of the respondent Authorities. According
to the petitioners, hearing before the Hearing Officer has been only an empty
formality and no meaningful exercise was ever undertaken by the Authority.
That they have acted with closed mind and biased manner.
[ad_1]
Source link