Rita Bhutani vs N.D.M.C.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3126 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              W.P.(C) 1324/2012 and CM 2848/2012

IN THE MATTER OF:
RITA BHUTANI                                            ..... Petitioner
                            Through: Mr. J.S. Lamba, Advocate with
                            Mr. Ram Singh Bisht, Advocate


                       versus


N.D.M.C.                                               ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Advocate with Ms. Sidhi Arora, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

: HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the property tax bill dated

23.11.2011 raised by the respondent/NDMC in respect of the property

bearing Shop No.39-A, Ground Floor, Khan Market, New Delhi, for the

assessment year 2011-12.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner

has been paying the property tax in respect of the subject property

regularly and she had deposited a sum of `11,64,612/- with the

respondent/NDMC towards property tax for the assessment year

2010-11. However, the respondent/NDMC had suddenly issued the

impugned bill demanding a sum of `22,49,592/- from the petitioner

towards property tax for the assessment year 2011-12 in respect of

the subject property, which is highly exaggerated and unjustified. It

is further stated that the petitioner is liable to pay property tax to the

tune of `15,25,763/- only and the said amount has been deposited

with NDMC during the pendency of the present petition.

3. Counsel for the respondent/NDMC, who appears on

advance copy, hands over brief synopsis pertaining to the facts of the

case and states that notices issued under Section 72 of the NDMC Act,

proposing to revise the existing rateable value of the subject premises

to `21,45,600/- on comparable rental basis w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and to

`54 lacs on actual rental basis w.e.f. 01.04.2008 are pending

consideration at the end of the Department. In the meantime, the

NDMC Determination of Annual Rental Byelaws-2009 was notified and

the Unit Area Method (UAM) was introduced in the NDMC jurisdiction.

Thereafter, the assessee of her own filed the property tax returns

showing rent of `53,25,000/- per annum and she had deposited a

sum of `11,64,612/- as property tax on self-assessment basis for the

assessment year 2010-11 and that prior thereto, she had deposited a

sum of `10,91,860/- towards property tax pending finalization of the

rateable value.

4. It is, thus, contended by learned counsel for the

respondent/NDMC that the tax deposited by the petitioner has been

received by the NDMC on provisional basis and the said amount has

been shown towards the credit of the assessee in the impugned bill,

pending finalization of the rateable value from the assessment year

01.04.2000 onwards. Ms. Tewatia, therefore, states that the

impugned bill does not raise any demand payable by the petitioner

but only reflects that an amount of `22,49,592/- is lying in the credit

of the petitioner subject to adjustment.

5. Counsel for the petitioner refutes the contention of the

counsel for the respondent/NDMC that the rateable value in respect of

the subject premises is pending finalization w.e.f. 01.04.2000

pursuant to issuance of notices under Section 72 of the NDMC Act.

6. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the

respondent/NDMC that the figures reflected in the impugned property

tax bill dated 23.11.201, to the tune of `22,49,592/- is towards the

credit of the petitioner and not a fresh demand, the anxiety of the

petitioner in this regard stands allayed. However, it is rather

surprising to notice that NDMC has not finalized the rateable value of

the subject premises w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and from 01.04.2008, after

purportedly issuing notices to the assessee under Section 72 of the

Act.

7. As counsel for the respondent/NDMC states that the

notices under Section 72 of the NDMC Act are pending consideration

for revising the rateable value of the subject premises fixed prior to

01.04.2000, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent/NDMC

to finalize the rateable value, if so pending at its end in accordance

with law. The objections stated to have been filed by the assessee

shall be taken into consideration at the time of finalizing the rateable

value.

8. As counsel for the petitioner states that an opportunity of

hearing be afforded to the petitioner before the rateable value of the

subject premises is determined by NDMC, it is deemed appropriate to

direct that the petitioner or her authorized representative shall appear

before the Director (Tax), NDMC on 23.05.2012 at 3 PM for a hearing.

Thereafter, an assessment order shall be passed by the competent

authority in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from

the date of conclusion of submissions, under written intimation to the

petitioner. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders that may

be passed, she shall be entitled to seek her remedies as per law.

The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application .

(HIMA KOHLI) Judge MAY 10, 2012 rkb/anb