As per case facts, the Petitioner challenged a property tax demand by the Respondent Corporation, which was based on Section 3 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2022. This ... amendment substituted Section 179(2)(d) of the principal Act, seeking to retrospectively validate property tax revisions and recoveries made beyond a three-year period previously established by a binding judicial decision. The Petitioner argued that this legislative action was an impermissible attempt to override a final judicial pronouncement and impose excessive fiscal burdens. The question arose whether the newly substituted Section 179(2)(d), particularly its non-obstante clause and sub-clause (ii) that retrospectively validated assessments irrespective of prior judgments, was unconstitutional as it sought to nullify binding judicial determinations and violated fundamental rights. Finally, the Court declared the non-obstante clause, insofar as it overrides binding judicial pronouncements, and sub-clause (ii) as unconstitutional, void, and inoperative, citing violations of Articles 14 and 300A and the doctrine of separation of powers. Sub-clause (i), which permits revision within six years, was deemed prospectively valid but incapable of reopening liabilities already finalized by judicial decisions. The demand based on the invalidated portions was quashed, and the Corporation was permitted to issue revised demands in line with the earlier three-year retrospective limit.