Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... vs Mr. Ram Saran Rastogi on 24 August, 2006
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain, K Gambhir
JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.8.2002 whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 9.12.97 was upheld. The learned Additional District Judge in an appeal filed by the respondent under Section 169 of the DMC Act had disposed of the two appeals bearing Nos. 986/97 and 1603/97. The respondent in the said appeal had impugned the property tax bill dated 2.9.95 and assessment order dated 1.11.94 respectively.
2. We may not describe all the facts and details as the same are not in dispute.
3. The notice issued by the appellant was impugned on the ground that the property in question could not have been assessed w.e.f. 1.12.88 on the basis of the proposal dated 21.3.93 bearing dispatch No. 14425 dated 23.3.93 to increase the rateable value from Rs. 44,440/- to Rs. 51,550 w.e.f. the year 1988-89 onwards. The learned Additional District Judge had observed to the following effects:
As per the provisions of Sub section (1) of Section 126 of the Act the Commissioner may at any time amend the assessment list for any of the reasons mentioned in the said sub-section of any such amendment become liable to pay any tax or increase of tax in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the year in which the notice under Sub section (2) is given.
4. The learned Additional District Judge has held that for amending the assessment list for the year 1988-89 onwards and even w.e.f. 1.12.88, notice under Section 126(3) of the Act should have been given before 1.4.92 but in the instant case the same is prepared and signed on 21.3.93 and dispatched vide claim No. 14425 dated 23.3.93. The Additional District Judge also held that the assessment of the property in question w.e.f. 1.12.88 on the basis of the notice under Section 126 of the Act dated 21.3.93 was bad in law and consequently quashed the said demand assessing the property from 1988-89.
5. Aggrieved by the said order the MCD assailed the order of the Additional District Judge by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C). No. 5803/98. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal on 27.8.2002. The order dated 27.8.2002 passed by the learned Single is as under:
The petitioner corporation has impugned the order dated 9.12.97 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was required to be given under Section 126(3) of the DMC Act, 1957 in view of the fact that the change which occurred on account of the amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act in term whereof the standard rent it to be calculated at 10% instead of 8.625%.
A bare reading of Section 126(1)(d) shows that the said provision covers increase or reduction for adequate reasons the amount of any rateable value and or assessment thereupon. Thus the said provision would cover requirements of the notice in question.
In view of the aforesaid I find no infirmity with the order of the Additional District Judge.
Dismissed.
It is however, made clear that this will not preclude the Petitioner Corporation from reassessing the rateable value for future in accordance with Law.
6. Ms. Tewatia counsel for the appellant has contended that Division Bench of this Court in MCD v. Subhash Chander Goel and Ors. after reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge has held as under:
Similarly, it is difficult for us to uphold the findings of learned ADJ that if notice is served in the year for which the proposal is sought to be made then the notice per se would become illegal. Proviso to Section 126 provides the answer. Notice under Section 126 is nothing but a proposal to fix the rateable value and it is open to the assessed to put up his case as to from which particular date or time tax is assessable by providing details as to the date of completion of building and other relevant particulars. Moreover, proviso to Section 126 itself provides that assessed would not be liable to pay tax in respect of any period to the commencement of the year in which notice is given. Merely because notice is not served in the year for which the proposal is sought to be made does not render it per se illegal and invalid.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid authority it was contended that even if the notice under Section 126 of the DMC Act was served on the respondent in 1993 still from 1993 onwards, after the notice has been given the assessed was entitled to pay on the basis of the rateable value fixed thereafter.
8. We are afraid that the view taken by the Division Bench of this court in MCD v. Subhash Chander Goel (supra) does not deal with the proposition as is being propounded by the counsel for the MCD. This argument now being advanced by the appellant is simply after thought. This has never been the stand of the appellant either before the Appellate Court or before the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise the facts and the issues involved in the case of MCD v. Subhash Chander Goel (supra) are totally different and dissimilar to the facts in the instant case. In the said case the validity of the notice was challenged due to non compliance of the imperative conditions of service as envisaged under Section 444(1)(d) of the DMC Act and also notice being not served within the same year for which the proposal for enhancement was made. In the present case the assessment order was made w.e.f. 1.12.88 on the basis of the proposal of the MCD dated 21.3.93 pursuant to the amendment in the DRC Act which also came into effect on 1.12.88. We therefore, do not find any force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
