Delhi High Court - Orders
Aarti Seth vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation And ... on 11 October, 2023
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4518/2015
AARTI SETH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Subhash C. Jindal, Advocate.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, SC, Mr. Kapil
Dutta, SC with Mr. Vansh Luthra,
Advocates with Mr. Nawal Kishor,
SSA, MCD A&C Depatt., Central
Zone.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 11.10.2023
1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails an order dated 18.06.2014 passed by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal, Delhi ["the Tribunal"].
2. By the aforesaid order, the learned Tribunal has upheld an assessment against the petitioner for property tax in respect of a hoarding installed on property No. A-270, Second floor and top floor, Bishma Pitama Marg, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110024.
3. Mr. Subhash C. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the levy of property tax on hoardings has been set aside by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 22.10.2020 in W.P.(C) 8118/2012 W.P.(C) 4518/2015 Page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2023 at 14:10:57 [Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & connected matters.]. A copy of the said judgment has been placed before the Court which demonstrates that this very issue was pending before the Court. The Division Bench has recorded its conclusions and directions in the following terms:
"60. The upshot of the above analysis is that under section 2(3) of the DMC Act, all immovable structures (except boundary wall) are covered by the definition of 'building' and are liable to be subjected to property tax. Thus, the immovable structures erected to hold and support 'hoardings' would also qualify as 'building' and would be liable to be subjected to property tax. However, only such of the hoardings (as defined in Bye Law 9(m) of the 2004 Bye Laws) would be liable to be subjected to property tax, which qualify as immovable structures (and are, thus, 'building's). Hoardings which are permanently fastened on the immovable structures which are embedded in earth, or something that is embedded in earth, and meet the test of permanence are liable to be considered as immovable structures. However, if the twin tests of degree/mode of annexation or object of annexation fail, hoardings would be excluded from the definition of building, and would not be liable to be subject to property tax. The challenge of the petitioner to the validity of Bye-Laws 9(m) and 14 of the 2004 Bye-Laws as being violative of Article 14 and Article 265 of the Constitution, is without any merit and is rejected. Corporation is competent to include such of the hoardings - which constitute immovable property in 'covered space', and this is in accordance with power conferred by statute. Corporation is also within its power to provide the manner in which property tax on building is to be levied by way of Bye-Laws and, therefore, the argument that tax can be imposed by statute and not by delegated legislation is irrelevant because such of the hoardings which constitute immovable structure are covered by building, and the Act itself provides for property tax on buildings. No basis has been shown to hold that the use factor of 10 assigned to hoardings is excessive. MVC is well within its power to give these recommendations. Property tax can be levied in addition to Advertisement tax as both the levies are separate.
Relief
61. In light of our findings given hereinabove, we are of the opinion, that factual determination of relevant factors regarding immovability of the hoardings being brought to tax is necessary, as a condition W.P.(C) 4518/2015 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2023 at 14:10:57 precedent, for the purpose of levying building tax. Accordingly, we consider it appropriate and therefore set-aside the demands and notices issued by the Respondent that are subject matter of W.P.(C.) 8118/2012 and also the notice Ref. No. Jr. A&C/Tax/HQ/2012/D-1070 dated 26.11.2012 impugned in W.P.(C.) 678/2013 on the ground that the question as to whether the hoardings in the instant cases qualify as permanent immovable structures, capable of being included in the definition of 'building' under Section 2(3) of the Act, has not been examined. The Respondent shall however be at liberty to issue fresh show-cause notice(s) to the Petitioners and all such other assessees, having regard to the views expressed in this judgment. In such an event, Respondent shall, after affording an opportunity of hearing, pass orders of assessment/demand, in accordance with law. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms."
4. The petitioner has already paid the property tax demanded by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ["MCD"] vide assessment order dated 09.08.2012 as upheld by the Tribunal. Following the judgment of the Division Bench dated 22.10.2020, the matter is remitted to MCD to take fresh decision in accordance with the judgment. The petitioner will be accorded a hearing and a decision will be taken within a period of eight weeks from today. In the event the petitioner's property is not found liable to tax, necessary consequential action be taken with four weeks thereafter.
5. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.
PRATEEK JALAN, J OCTOBER 11, 2023 'Bhupi'/ W.P.(C) 4518/2015 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2023 at 14:10:58