Delhi District Court
Bharat Consultants1 vs Ndmc on 18 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL, ADJ-03,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI.
HTA No. 46/17
CNR No.DLND010055872017
Bharat Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director Mr. Ramesh Chandra Vaish
169, Golf Links, New Delhi.
...Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through the Assessing Authority
(House Tax Department)
9th Floor, Palika Kendra,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
...Respondent
Date of institution : 22.04.2017
Date on which reserved for judgment : 12.03.2024
Date of decision : 18.03.2024
Decision : Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed u/s 115 of the NDMC Act 1994 challenging the assessment order dated 07.03.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) and consequential property tax bill. Digitally signed by Shirish Shirish Aggarwal Aggarwal Date:
2024.03.18 15:20:44 +0530 HTA No. 46/17 Bharat Consultants Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 1/9 Appellant's version
2. It is the case of the appellant that it is the owner of property bearing no. 169, Golf Links, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the premises).
3. It is the case of the appellant that prior to the year 2006, the premises was assessed and property tax bills were raised upon the rateable value of property at Rs.42,000/- by applying the standard rent formula. However, on 27.02.2007, the respondent issued a notice under Section 72 of the NDMC Act proposing to increase the rateable value to Rs.42,84,600/- on comparable rent basis and invited objections from the appellant.
4. On receiving the notice, the appellant sent a reply dated 29.03.2007 and raised objections. Thereafter, the respondent raised property tax bill dated 19.11.2007, thereby assessing the ratable value of the property at Rs.42,000/-. It is stated that the notice specifically mentioned that "there are no arrears of any property tax till 01.04.2007". It is contended that in these circumstances, the respondent is deemed to have accepted the contentions of the appellant.
5. It is stated that thereafter, the appellant was shocked to receive letters dated 19.11.2012 and 06.12.2012 from the respondent after a period of six years, calling upon the appellant to attend a hearing on 23.11.2012/20.12.2012 for finalization of assessment in relation to the notice issued in the year 2007. It is HTA No. 46/17 Bharat Consultants Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 2/9 pleaded that replies to these letters were sent by the appellant to the respondent.
6. However, without considering the submissions of the appellant, the respondent passed an assessment order dated 21.01.2013 by raising a huge demand of Rs.42,84,600/- as property tax and raised the consequential property tax bill.
7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the respondent, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 and gave the following directions:
"The impugned order dated 21.01.2013 issued by the respondent to the petitioner is set aside.
As agreed, the petitioner and or his representative shall appear before the Director (Taxes) NDMC on 13.03.2013 at 2:30 P.M. The petitioner shall be entitled to place on record the relevant material on which reliance is placed.
The Director Taxes, NDMC, after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner or his representatives will pass a reasoned order in accordance with law."
8. It is stated that the appellant appeared in the office of the Director, Taxes, NDMC on 13.03.2013 at 02:30 PM and made submissions. Written submissions were also filed. Thereafter, the HTA No. 46/17 Bharat Consultants Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 3/9 respondent passed the impugned order dated 07.03.2017 and also raised the consequential property tax bill. The impugned order has been challenged on the following grounds:
(a) That it has been passed without application of mind and comparison of the property in question has been done with dissimilar properties. It is stated that the properties of which rental has been taken into consideration have much larger area and are having brand new constructions.
(b) The order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 20.02.2023 has been complied with after lapse of four years and this establishes malafide intention on part of the respondent. It is stated that after more than 10 years have elapsed since issuance of notice dated 27.02.2007 that the respondent is retrospectively enhancing the property tax.
(c) Re-assessment has been done after a period of six years and that too after accepting the contentions of the appellant. It is stated that the property tax bills raised by the respondent were duly paid by the appellant for each assessment years. It is stated that the rateable value has been significantly increased by the respondent arbitrarily and illegally.
9. Grounds (e) and (l) taken in the appeal were withdrawn by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments on 28.02.2024 and 12.03.2024 respectively.
HTA No. 46/17 Bharat Consultants Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 4/9
10. It is the case of the appellant that the impugned demand as well as the impugned order are absolutely without jurisdiction, contrary to law and liable to be set aside.
Respondent's version
11. Reply to the appeal has been filed. It is pleaded that the appeal is not maintainable in the present form and deserves dismissal with exemplary costs.
12. It is stated that the appellant never appeared before the Director, Taxes, NDMC on 13.03.2013 as was directed by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 20.02.2013. It is pleaded that the matter was fixed for hearing on 20.01.2017 and on this date, one advocate named Ms. Nishta Sikroria appeared on behalf of the appellant and requested for adjournment for filing reply. The case was then adjourned to 27.01.2017 and on this date, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Thereafter, on 30.01.2017, Ms. Nishta Sikroria again appeared and filed written submissions. It is stated that the written statement were taken on record and were considered.
Findings
13. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties, considered the record carefully and given due consideration to the rival contentions.
HTA No. 46/17 Bharat Consultants Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 5/9
14. In the impugned order dated 07.03.2017, rateable value of the premises has been calculated on the basis of the rent of other neighboring properties. The property in question is bearing no. 169, Golf Links, New Delhi. The assessing authority took into consideration the rent of nearby properties bearing no. 107, 172, 176 and 180, Golf Link, New Delhi. This manner of calculating the rateable value is derived from Section 63 of New Delhi Municipal Council Act r/w various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in the cases of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Association of Concerned Citizens of New Delhi Civil Appeal No.903-930 of 2019 dated 22.01.2019 and State Trading Corporation India Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council Civil Appeal No.2772 of 2009 dated 03.02.2016.
15. In the case of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Association of Concerned Citizens of New Delhi Civil Appeal No.903-930 of 2019 dated 22.01.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon its previous decisions in other cases and held that the phrase annual rent mentioned in Section 63 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act is to be determined on the basis of the letting value which is expected reasonably. It was held that in cases where the property is self-occupied or is vacant and not let out, annual rent can be gathered from the rent at which a comparable property is let out.
16. In the case of State Trading Corporation India Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council Civil Appeal No.2772 of 2009 HTA No. 46/17 Bharat Consultants Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 6/9 dated 03.02.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the building is self-occupied, the annual rent will have to be fixed on the basis of what the landlord might reasonably expect to get from a hypothetical tenant.
17. In the order dated 20.02.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the writ petition of the appellant herein, the submission of the appellant have been recorded that the appellant should have been permitted to produce evidence showing the comparable rent of the area. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter back to the Director, Taxes and granted liberty to the appellant herein to place on record such material as the appellant deems fit. Direction was given to the appellant to appear before the Director, Taxes on 13.03.2013 at 02:30 PM for granting a personal hearing.
18. It is stated in the reply that neither the appellant nor its representatives appeared before the Director, Taxes on 13.03.2013. The appellant did not place on record any material which discloses the rate of rent of the premises in question. Copy of the written submissions filed by the appellant is on record. The appellant has not disclosed the rate of rent of any other similar property in that area.
19. Since the appellant did not place reliance on any other property which as per the appellant is similar to the property in question, the appellant is not entitled to contend that the HTA No. 46/17 Bharat Consultants Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 7/9 properties referred to in the impugned order and relied upon by the respondent are dissimilar properties.
20. Since the appellant did not file any material before the Director, Taxes which indicates the rate of rent of the property in question, the appellant does not have locus to question the rate of rent calculated by the respondent.
21. It is admitted by the appellant that written submissions were filed by the appellant on 30.01.2017 and before that no material was placed on record by the petitioner before the Director, Taxes. By order dated 20.02.2013, the Hon'ble High Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to place on record evidence showing the comparable rent in the area. Therefore, the delay in passing the assessment order was due to the appellant and not the respondent. It took around four years for the appellant to place on record material in its support and therefore, it cannot challenge the assessment order on the ground that it has been passed belatedly.
22. Moreover, no property tax returns were submitted by the appellant for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Therefore, in view of Section 77(3) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, the appellant is precluded from objecting to assessment made for these years.
HTA No. 46/17 Bharat Consultants Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 8/9
23. I have gone through the impugned order dated 07.03.2017 and have not found any infirmity in the rateable value calculated by the respondent. There is also no infirmity in the consequential property tax bill issued. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
24. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
(Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by Shirish
on18th March, 2024) Shirish Aggarwal
Aggarwal Date:
2024.03.18
15:20:51 +0530
(Dr. Shirish Aggarwal)
Additional District Judge-03
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District,
New Delhi
HTA No. 46/17 Bharat Consultants Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 9/9