Mahesh Prasad vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 1056 Del

32
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 7455/1999       Date of decision: 23rd February, 2010.
      MAHESH PRASAD               ..... Petitioner
                        Through      Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Adv.

                    versus

      MCD & ANR                        .... Respondent
                             Through

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                             ORDER

%

1. The petitioner had deposited one time property tax on rateable

value of Rs. 30, 890/- in terms of Resolution Nos. 990, 1029 and 1030.

The said rateable value of Rs. 30,890/- was valid for the years 1987-88

and the property tax payable for the said year was Rs. 7,098/-.

Accordingly, the petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs. 63,882/- to

take advantage of the aforesaid resolutions.

2. Subsequently, there was an increase in the rateable value and

the same was enhanced to Rs. 2,04,000/- with effect from 1st April, 1998

vide order dated 5th March, 1999. This increase was on account of the

fact that the petitioner had rented out the property as per the lease

deed dated 1st March, 1998. This order however records that the

W.P.(C) No.7455/1999 Page 1 petitioner has paid one time property tax on rateable value of Rs.

30,890/- and accordingly suitable deduction will be allowed from the tax

calculated on the basis of new rateable value. This was followed by the

rectification order dated 13th March, 1999 recording that rateable value

of the property should have been increased from 1st April, 1996 in terms

of the notice issued under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal

Corporation Act, 1956 (DMC Act for short). Accordingly, the rateable

value was fixed at Rs. 1,04,000/- with effect from 1st April, 1996 and at

Rs. 2,14,300/- with effect from 1st April, 1998. This order again records

that the petitioner will be entitled to benefit/reduction of one time

property tax on rateable value of Rs. 30,890/-.

3. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal, which was dismissed by

the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 7th September,

1999. This order records that the notice for enhancement of property

tax under the DMC Act could not be served on the petitioner during the

year 1995-96. Learned Additional District Judge issued directions in this

regard to the respondent authorities to examine the matter. On the

quantum of rateable value, there was no dispute. The petitioner,

however, raised a plea that he had paid one-time tax and, therefore, the

rateable value cannot be increased. The learned Additional District

W.P.(C) No.7455/1999 Page 2 Judge did not find any merit in the said contention and dismissed the

said appeal.

4. It is not possible to agree with the petitioner that in view of the

payment of one-time property tax in terms of Resolution No. 990, 1029

and 1030 dated 10th February, 1986, the petitioner is entitled to

exemption from enhancement of rateable value and tax payable

thereon for all times to come. The exemption, which was granted, was

specific to the rateable value fixed on the basis of which one time

property tax was paid. The petitioner has been rightly given deduction

on the basis of said payment while computing and raising the bills.

Payment of one-time property tax did not mean that the respondent

could not increase or enhance rateable value in future and that the

petitioner is not liable to pay property tax on the enhanced rateable

value. No such exemption was granted by the said resolutions.This

Court in Common Cause & Ors. v M.C.D & Anr. 1996(63)DLT251 held

that there is exemption from payment of tax on rateable value (for the

time being) and not on person or property (as such or as an unit of

exemption). The relevant paragraphs of the judgment apposite:-

"17. The abovesaid discussion leads to the following conclusion:-

(i) The rateable value of any property having been assessed and rateable value so assessed having become subject

W.P.(C) No.7455/1999 Page 3 matter of lump sump payment scheme, cannot be subjected to tax so long as the rateable value cannot be subjected to amendment by reference to the power exercizeable by the Corporation under Section 126 or 127 of the Act.

(ii) In case of increase in the rateable value of the property on account of any of the factors contemplated by Clauses, b,d,f and g of sub section 1 of section 126 of the Act, the Corporation may revise the rateable value of the property though it has been subject matter of the lump sum payment scheme at an earlier point of time.In respect of the added or enhance rateable value the liability for payment of tax even on such added or enhance rateable value may be claimed by availing benefit of lumpsum payment scheme under which benefit has already been availed for the unaltered part of the rateable value."

5. Reference in this regard can also be made to Section 116 H of

the DMC Act, 1957, which reads as follows:-

"116H. One-time tax.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in those cases where the owner has already paid one-time tax under some scheme in the past, the extent of the rateable value on the basis which the one-

time tax was paid shall be set off against the annual value calculated under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003 and the tax liability shall be worked out on the basis of net annual value."

6. The aforesaid provision makes it clear that where the owner has

already paid one-time tax under any scheme in the past, the rateable

W.P.(C) No.7455/1999 Page 4 value on the basis of which one-time tax was paid shall be set off

against the annual value calculated under the provisions of the Delhi

Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003. The said provision is not

squarely applicable as the same applies after amendment which was

made to the DMC Act vide the Delhi Municipal Corporation

(Amendment) Act, 2003 and the said provision refers to the annual

value and not rateable value. However, the object and logic behind

granting exemption is clear. The petitioner has not been granted

exemption from enhancement of rateable value or the property tax

payable on the enhanced rateable value. The exemption is limited to

the rateable value on the basis of which one time tax was paid. In these

circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and

the same is dismissed.

FEBRUARY 23, 2010                       SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NA




W.P.(C) No.7455/1999                                             Page 5