As per case facts, the appellant challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed his writ petition seeking to set aside an assessment order for his property's rateable value. The High ... Court's decision relied on its earlier judgment in a similar case, which had rejected the application of a 'parity' principle in property valuation, deeming it impractical and beyond statutory contemplation, despite a District Judge previously remanding the matter to consider this principle. The appellant argued that this principle, established by earlier Supreme Court judgments, was crucial to avoid unfair disparities in property tax assessments. The question arose whether the rateable value of properties for tax purposes should incorporate the 'parity' principle, as articulated in previous Supreme Court rulings, alongside standard rent calculations, to ensure equitable assessment across similar properties regardless of their age. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the High Court's reasoning, affirming that its previous judgments on the parity principle are binding and clear. It held that while the standard rent sets an upper limit for rateable value, the assessing authorities must also consider the rent of similar, older properties in the same locality to prevent significant and irrational disparities between the assessments of older and newer constructions. The Court emphasized that ignoring this principle would lead to illogical and unfair outcomes, and dismissed the High Court's concerns about the practicality of such assessments, stressing that the Municipal Corporation possesses the necessary resources and records to implement these guidelines.