Delhi High Court
Kanishka Impex Pvt Ltd vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 1 June, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision 01/06/2022
+ W.P.(C) 6453/2022, CM. APPL. No.19518/2022 & CM.APPL
No.19517/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S KANISHKA IMPEX PVT LTD ....... Petitioner.
Through: Mr.Kunal Israney and Ms.Ruchika
Joshi, Advocates.
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kunal Vajani, Standing
Counsel with Mr.Kunal Mimani,
Mr.Kartikey Bhatt and
Mr.Shubhang Tandon, Advocates
for respondent No.1/ SDMC.
Mr.Santosh Kr.Tripathi, Standing
Counsel (Civil), GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the Suo-Moto
Assessment Order dated 25.12.2020 issued by the respondents, whereby
its self-assessment of property tax return in respect of property No. B-
1/Ext/E-19, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 is
sought to be reopened from the year 2004 onwards. The petitioner further
seeks quashing of demand notice dated 17.03.2022 issued under Section
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:06.06.2022
16:15:42
154(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter,
referred to as the 'Act'), whereby demand of Rs.32,82,413/- in form of
property tax due as on 31.03.2021 has been raised. Other connected
reliefs are also sought.
2. Mr. Kunal Israney, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
a representation dated 16.03.2021 was filed before the respondents on
behalf of the petitioner, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner had
in fact made a payment of Rs.3,52,600/- towards alleged deficits in
property tax for the years 2004-2021. He further submits that out of
Rs.32,82,413/- demanded vide the impugned notice, Rs.15,19,287/- were
claimed by the respondents towards interest. The petitioner, in order to
avail the benefit of the General Amnesty Scheme 2020-21, made
payment of Rs.3,52,600/- (approx.) to the respondents and is accordingly
entitled to waiver of 100% interest and penalty on payment of upto date
outstanding dues on account of property tax upto 31.03.2021, in terms of
the Scheme.
3. Mr. Kunal Vajani, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent/SDMC, on the other hand, has disputed the submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that after considering the
petitioner's representation, fresh assessment order dated 16.02.2022 was
passed and demand notice dated 17.03.2022 issued.
4. Mr. Israney has further contended that under Section 169 of the
Act, the impugned assessment order is appealable before the Municipal
Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Tribunal'). As such,
the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Tribunal under Sections
169/170 of the Act, alongwith an application seeking stay of the
impugned demand notice. However, the same is not likely to be heard
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:06.06.2022
16:15:42
within the statutory period of 30 days since receipt of demand notice, as
the Tribunal has not been functioning.
In response, Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel
(Civil), GNCTD, has submitted that requisite steps for constitution of the
Tribunal are underway. In this regard, he has handed over a 'Status Note'
in Court, which is taken on record. As per the 'Status Note', all the posts
in the Tribunal, as on date, are lying vacant. Learned Standing Counsel,
on instructions, submits that requisite steps in this regard would be taken
expeditiously.
5. Mr. Israney has also referred to judgment dated 20.12.2021 passed
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mother Dairy Fruit and
Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation, W.P. (C)
14585/2021 where, subject to the petitioner continuing to pay property
tax as per the base assessment year of 2004, it was directed that no
coercive steps be taken against it.
Learned counsel, on instructions, submits that the present
petitioner shall continue to pay property tax as per the base year 2004-05.
He also seeks liberty for the petitioner to pursue appropriate recourse
before the Tribunal as and when the same becomes functional.
6. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the
present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to
continue to pay property tax as per the base assessment year 2004-05, as
undertaken by it. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to pursue
appropriate remedy before the Tribunal within four weeks of
commencement of its functioning.
7. Subject to the petitioner taking recourse before the Tribunal in the
time permitted and continuing to pay property tax as per the assessment
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:06.06.2022
16:15:42
year 2004-05, no coercive steps be taken against it till listing of the
appeal. It is clarified that continuation of interim protection thereafter
shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Tribunal. Miscellaneous
applications are disposed of as infructuous.
8. Needless to state that this Court has not gone into the merits of the
contentions raised on behalf of either of the parties. As such, the rights
and contentions of the parties shall remain reserved.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
JUNE 01, 2022
ga
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:06.06.2022
16:15:42
