National Institute Of Public ... vs The Assessor And Collector, Mcd
2001 Latest Caselaw 1741 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

2. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

3. The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order the order dated 4.3.1994, by which the rateable value of the property was fixed at Rs. 8,97,986/-. The petitioner's case is that prior to the impugned order dated 2.8.1991, the rateable value was fixed as Rs. 4,40,600/-. Besides 60% of the accommodation was held to be entitled for exemption under Section 115(4) of the DMC Act. The remaining 40% of the accommodation was not entitled to exemption. The property was held to be exigible for levy of tax at rates as applicable to residential premises.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made representations to the Assessor and Collector for recalling of the impugned order dated 4.3.1994. The matter had been pending consideration before the Assessor and Collector. The respondents however had at an intermediate stage, pursuant to the impugned order sought to take coercive steps and had issued a warrant of distress dated 6.3.2000. However, based on a representation made and considering that the matter was pending consideration before the Assessor and Collector, the said warrant of distress was withdrawn on 8.3.2000. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the warrants of distress was again issued o 26.9.2000. Attachment of a sum of Rs. 21,06,109/- had been made and realized form the petitioner's bank account.

5. Learned standing counsel for the respondent Mr. S. Mukherjee has submitted that the impugned order determines the rateable value at Rs. 8,97,989/- on account of construction of the new building etc. which is not assailable. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the determination of rateable value at Rs. 8,97,986/- confines his grievance to the non grant of exemption. The denial of exemption on the ground that the petitioner is not dependent solely on the voluntary donations is not correct. It appears that the impugned order suffers from a typographical error. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as; "On examination of the amount,it is noticed that the organisation does not fulfill the condition laid down under Section 115 of the DMC Act as it is solely dependant on voluntary donations and is not entitled for exemption."

6. It would appear that the finding should have been that the petitioner is not solely dependent on voluntary donations to deny the exemption. In any case the order passed is lacking in content and reason. Mr. S. Mukherjee very fairly admits this position.

7. With the consent of the parties the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to dispose of the petitioner's case for exemption by a speaking order, giving reasons as to why the petitioner is not found to be complying with the requirements of Section 115 of the DMC Act.

8. Let the petitioner appear before the Joint Assessor and Collector, R.K. Puram on 21.11.2001 at 2.00 p.m. Respondent would grant a hearing to the petitioner. In the meanwhile petitioner may produce any further material in support of his contentions for entitlement for exemption and file the same before the Joint Assessor and Collector within 10 days from today. Joint Assessor and Collector will dispose of the matter by 31.12.2001. In case petitioner is found to be entitled to exemption any consequential refund in tax would be made to the petitioner.

9. Writ petition stands disposed of.