Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... vs Mithan Lal on 8 July, 2002
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Petitioner-Corporation has filed the present
writ petition impugning the judgment dated 5.12.1978 of
the learned Addl. District Judge setting aside the
assessment orders dated 31.5.1978 for the years 1975-76
and 1977-78 in respect of property bearing No.H-147,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.
2. Learned Addl. District Judge has set aside the
assessment for three reasons; firstly the notice was
issued under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to the said
Act) and not under Section 124 of the said Act;
secondly that sufficient reasons had not been given for
enhancement of ratable value and thirdly no basis is
even given for the assessment of the property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states
that on the issue of the absence of reasons, the matter
is liable to be remanded back to the Competent
Authority for decision in accordance with law after
giving the reasons for the same. Learned counsel,
however, contends that in so far as the first aspect is
concerned, Section 124 of the Act is in respect of the
preparation and publishing of the assessment list while
Section 126 of the Act deals with the amendment of the
assessment list. Learned counsel for the petitioner
refers to the judgment of the learned single Judge of
this Court in Smt. Santosh Chandiok Vs. Municipal
Corporation, 1972 RLR Notes 98 where it was held that
so far as assessment of a newly erected building is
concerned there is no difference between the provisions
of Sections 124 and 126 of the Act governing the issue
of notice but the the real difference lies in the legal
consequences flowing from it in as much as in a notice
under Section 124 of the Act, the liability to pay tax
arises with effect from the beginning of the following
financial year, while in the case of a notice under
Section 126 of the Act, the liability to pay the tax
arises with effect from the beginning of the current
year. Learned counsel further submits that in response
to the notice dated 31.3.1976,the only objection
raised by the petitioner vide letter dated 4.5.1976 was
that the ratable value was too high.
3. I find force in the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. In view of the nature of
objection raised by respondent no.1 and the aforesaid
position of law, there was no infirmity in the notice
sent by the petitioner. However, in view of the
absence of any reason giving the basis of the
assessment, the matter in question was liable to be
remanded back to the Competent Authority for passing
assessment order in accordance with law after recording
reasons.
4. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order dated
5.12.1978is set aside with the direction to the
concerned Authority to pass an order afresh giving
reasons for the assessment. In view of longer passage
of time, it will be appropriate that order is passed
after issuance of notice to the respondent no.1.
Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
