Delhi High Court
Sh Atul Sethi vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 8 September, 2021
$~55
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 08.09.2021
+ W.P.(C) 9893/2021
SH. ATUL SETHI ..... Petitioner
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ishaan Chawla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhanesh Relan and Ms. Ridhima Gupta,
Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns Assessment Order dated 01.12.2020,
whereby suo motu assessment under Section 123 AB/D of the DMC
(Amendment) Act, 2003 under Unit Area Method has been done.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
However, as the Appellate Tribunal is not functional, he is constrained
W.P.(C) 9893/2021 Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:08.09.2021
Signing Date:09.09.2021 08:52:43 20:12
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
to approach this Court.
4. Leaned counsel submits that the Unit Area Method applied has
already been struck down by Division Bench of this Court and said
order has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the assessment order dated
01.12.2020 is clearly erroneous as it has been mentioned that there are
three floors in the subject property whereas the property is only a
single storey structure.
6. He further submits that the covered area has been taken far in
excess of the actual area of the property and even age factor has been
applied as '1', whereas the property is an old constructed property.
7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing
for respondent.
8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the subject
assessment order was passed as petitioner had failed to file the
property tax returns. He submits that Respondents are willing to pass a
fresh assessment order after inspection of the property.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that since there
was ongoing dispute in respect of the subject property and was lying
vacant, returns were not filed since the year 2005 - 2006.
W.P.(C) 9893/2021 Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:08.09.2021
Signing Date:09.09.2021 08:52:43 20:12
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
10. He further submits that respondent may carry out physical
inspection of the property and thereafter, pass a fresh assessment
order.
11. In view of the above, the assessment order dated 01.12.2020 is
set aside. Petitioner is directed to file his property tax returns for the
period 2005-06 onwards within a period of two weeks from today.
12. On filing of the property tax returns, respondent shall carry out
a physical inspection of the property of the petitioner and thereafter,
after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, pass a fresh speaking
assessment order.
13. This would be without prejudice to the right of the respondent
to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with regard to
delayed filing of property tax returns.
14. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
15. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2021
NA
W.P.(C) 9893/2021 Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:08.09.2021
Signing Date:09.09.2021 08:52:43 20:12
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
