Delhi District Court
The Motor And General Finance Ltd vs N D M C New Delhi on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANUBHAV JAIN,
LD. DISTRICT JUDGE-05, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLND010016462025
CASE NO. HTA/37/2025
In the matter of:
The Motor & General Finance Ltd.,
having its Registered office at
4/17-B, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi - 110002,
Through its Executive Director,
Mr. Arun Mitter.
....Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council
Through its Chairperson, Palika Kendra,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
....Respondent
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE NEW DELHI
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1994 AGAINST THE
ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.05.2017.
HTA 37/25 Page No. 1 of 13
THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C
Date of institution : 18.03.2025
Date when judgment reserved : 16.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 17.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Present Judgment shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant against assessment order dated 30.05.2017 calculation sheet dated 05.06.2017 passed by respondent NDMC.
2. It is stated by the appellant in their appeal that appellant purchased the property in question i.e., 50, Golf Links, New Delhi-110003 admeasuring 1631.94 sq. yards whereupon construction was done by appellant of a residential tenement in the years 1956-57 which was assessed to property tax from the very inception. Further, it is stated that an area of 1611 sq. ft was constructed on the 2nd floor during the period 1994-99 bringing the total covered area to 12,323 sq. ft. and no additional construction have been carried out since then.
2.1. It is stated that respondent vide an assessment order dated 07.06.1999 fixed the rateable value of said property at Rs.2,57,085/-. Further, it is stated that respondent issued a Notice dated 06.03.2000 u/s 72 of NDMC Act proposing to increase the existing Rateable Value of said property to Rs.26,20,800/- less 10% with effect from 01.04.1999 on the ground that the Rateable Value prior to revision for 1998-99 was Rs.52,800/- less 10% but HTA 37/25 Page No. 2 of 13 THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C it was wrongly taken as Rs.47,800/- less 10%. It is stated that objections dated 16.03.2000 were filed against said notice.
2.2. It is further stated that without deciding the said notice dated 06.03.2000, respondent issued another notice dated 23.06.2000 u/s 77 of NDMC Act upon the appellant, seeking certain information and documents, which appellant replied to vide communication dt. 11.10.2000 complying with the requisitions of the said notice. It is stated that without deciding previously issued notice dated 06.03.2000, respondent thereafter issued notice dated 13.02.2001 u/s 72 of the Act proposing to increase existing Rateable Value of said property to Rs.59,12,640/- less 10% with effect from 01.04.2000 on the ground that since owners have failed to furnish the copy of Balance Sheet and Profit and loss account in response to notice u/s 77 of NDMC Act, rateable value is proposed to be revised on market rent of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. per month as fetched by 6, Golf Links, New Delhi, and that the said property is not self-occupied and rent is not known.
2.3. It is stated that appellant made various communications dated 26.08.2013, 09.09.2013 and 30.09.2013 in response to the call letters received from respondent. It is stated that appellant also filed representation dated 28.04.2016. It is stated that thereafter, respondent passed impugned assessment order dated 30.05.2017 and issued a calculation sheet dated 05.06.2017, HTA 37/25 Page No. 3 of 13 THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C wherein respondent adjudicated upon notices dated 06.03.2000 and 13.02.2001.
2.4. It is stated that appellant challenged the said assessment order dated 30.05.2017 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP No. 6064/2017 titled Motor & General Finance Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Council wherein order dt. 07.02.2025 was passed granting liberty to appellant to approach this Court in an appeal u/s 115 of NDMC Act and further granted protection to appellant vide order dt. 03.03.2025.
2.5. Present appeal is filed by the appellant on the ground that the order dated 30.05.2017 so passed by the respondent is after the inordinate delay of 17 years without giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It is further alleged that the said order was passed by respondent without providing cogent reasons or disclosing any specifics as to which the said property is compared with the property mentioned in the aforementioned notices. It is further alleged that said order was passed by respondent without considering the laws settled by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
2.6. The appellant by way of present appeal has challenged the impugned order dated 30.05.2017 and calculation sheet dated 05.06.2017, which was passed pursuant to notices dated 06.03.2000 and 13.02.2001.
HTA 37/25 Page No. 4 of 13THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C
3. It is pertinent to note herein that vide order dated 18.03.2025, notice of the appeal was issued upon the respondent which was duly served. However, no reply to the present appeal has been filed by the respondent NDMC. As such, present matter was put up for final arguments.
4. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that said assessment order is passed on the strength of notices issued in the year 2000 and 2001 and the said assessment order is time barred by virtue of Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ved Marwah case. On the other hand, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that there were sufficient opportunity granted to the appellant to file objection within time and to provide relevant documents, appellant chose not to file the same.
5. I have heard the arguments so led by the counsels of the parties and perused the case file.
6. The grievance of the appellant herein is with respect to order dated 30.05.2017 passed by respondent NDMC in pursuance of notices dt. 06.03.2000 and 13.02.2001, whereby rateable value of the property of appellant was increased from Rs. 2,57,085/- to Rs.26,20,800/- with effect from 01.04.1999 and further to Rs.59,12,640/- with effect from 01.04.2000.
HTA 37/25 Page No. 5 of 13THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C
7. Admittedly, the appellant was in receipt of notices dated 06.03.200 and 13.02.2001 from the respondent herein u/s 72 of NDMC Act, whereby it was proposed to increase the rateable value to Rs. 26,20,800/- with effect from 01.04.1999 and further to Rs.59,12,640/- with effect from 01.04.2000 respectively.
As per the appellant, it had duly replied to the said notice dated 06.03.2000 by filing objections dated 16.03.2000 and to notice dated 13.02.2001 vide communications dated 26.08.2013, 09.09.2013 and 30.09.2013 as well as representation dated 28.04.2016.
8. Appellant herein placed strong reliance upon the judgment Ved Marwah v NDMC and Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8096 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein, it was observed as follows:
16. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of limitation has been prescribed therefor, the same would not mean that the suo moto power can be exercised at any time.
17. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.
18. Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the HTA 37/25 Page No. 6 of 13 THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reasonable period, keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years."
Further, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed:
In view of the above reasoning, it is held the impugned final orders of assessment and the demands issued are clearly unreasonable and void. They are hereby quashed. Consequently, it is held that the NDMC is at liberty to rework the assessments in respect of the properties that are the subject matter of these proceedings, by issuing fresh notices for the periods commencing from 3 years prior to the date on which the final notices were issued and finalize the assessments within reasonable time. In the event of grievance on the part of the assessee to such fresh assessment orders, it is open to them to approach the appellate tribunal; provided they deposit the amount towards the tax liability for the base year.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon judgment V.P. Aggarwal Vs. NDMC, dated 22.11.2023, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:
HTA 37/25 Page No. 7 of 13THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C
7. This Court in the judgment of Ved Marwah (supra) has held that the finalization of the assessment proceedings after a delay of more than ten years was unreasonable and thus, liable to be set aside. In such cases of inordinate delay in finalization of assessment proceedings what needs to be seen by the appellate authorities is that on whose account the proceedings were delayed. In cases where the assessees have fulfilled their obligations by submitting their objections and supporting documents to the authorities and it is the authorities who are delaying the adjudication process, then the assessees cannot be penalized for inaction of the authorities. However, this adjudication involves deciding disputed questions of facts, which cannot be done by this Court in writ proceedings. The petitioner is thus, required to raise his objections before the appellate authorities.
10. A joint reading of the above said judgments holds that it is for the NDMC to finalize the assessment within reasonable time of issuance of notice, however it is for the appellate authority to see that on whose account the proceedings were delayed.
11. In light of the law discussed above, coming to the present case in hand on merits, admittedly respondent NDMC herein has issued notice upon the appellant dt. 06.03.2000 followed by notice dt. 23.06.2000 seeking certain information and documents that was replied to by appellant vide communication dated HTA 37/25 Page No. 8 of 13 THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C 11.10.2000. Thereafter, notice dated 13.02.2001 was issued upon the defendant and subsequently, present assessment order in question was passed on 30.05.2017 fixing the rateable value at Rs.2,36,500/- with effect from 01.04.1999 and at Rs.43,01,300/-
with effect from 01.04.2000.
12. As per the appellant, upon receipt of notice dated 06.03.2000, further follow notice dated 23.06.2000 and notice dated 13.02.2001, appellant has made objections, communications and representations to the respondent officials with regard to increase in rateable value.
13. Be that as it may, the question which requires determination is whether the respondent is well within its power to pass assessment order in question, after 17 years of issuance of notices, thereby seeking the appellant to pay tax on increased rateable value for last 17 years.
14. As per the arguments led by Ld. Counsel for respondent, the delay in passing of assessment order is attributable to the conduct of the appellant herein, since he failed to file objections within prescribed time and further failed to provide relevant documents. On the other hand, the appellant, placing strong reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ved Marwah's case, argued that the assessment order has to be passed within three years of issuance of notice.
HTA 37/25 Page No. 9 of 13THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C
15. For the sake of arguments, even if the averments so made by the respondent are believed to be true and correct that the appellant despite notices failed to file any objections on time or relevant documents as per the said notices, the same does not in any manner bar or limits the power or authority of respondent to pass assessment order on the basis of material already available with them.
Even on perusal of notices (notices in question) u/s 72, NDMC Act dated 06.03.2000 and 13.02.2001 issued by respondent to the appellant, it is clearly mentioned therein that objections are to be filed within 35 days from receipt of the notice and in case no objections are received within aforesaid time, it shall be presumed that you have no objection to the proposed amendment. Relevant portion of the notice dated 06.03.2000 is being reproduced as under, for the sake of convenience:
This is to inform you that the assessment list for the year 1999-2000 is proposed to be amended as per details and reasons given hereunder and if you wish to file any objection in this connection, you may submit your objections in this office in writing so that is received in this office not later than 35 days from the date of receipt of this notice. If no objection is received within the aforesaid time, it shall be presumed that you have no objection to proposed amendment.HTA 37/25 Page No. 10 of 13
THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C Similar portion of notice dated 13.02.2001 is reproduced hereinbelow:
This is to inform you that the assessment list for the year 2000-2001 is proposed to be amended as per details and reasons given hereunder and if you wish to file any objection in this connection, you may submit your objections in this office in writing so that is received in this office not later than 35 days from the date of receipt of this notice. If no objection is received within the aforesaid time, it shall be presumed that you have no objection to proposed amendment.
16. As such, the respondent herein was well within its authority to pass the assessment order upon the notices dated 06.03.2000 and 13.02.2001 after the period of 35 days, in case no objections were received upon the same from the appellant.
However, the respondent, for the reasons best known to itself, after the lapse of 17 years finally passed the assessment order on 30.05.2017 increasing the rateable value to Rs.2,36,500/- with effect from 01.04.1999 and to Rs.43,01,300/- with effect from 01.04.2000.
17. At this juncture, it is further pertinent to note in here that in the notices under consideration dated 06.03.2000 and 13.02.2001, the provisionally proposed rateable value was fixed by the respondent to Rs.26,20,800/- less 10% and Rs.59,12,640/- less 10% respectively. Further, finally the rateable value was HTA 37/25 Page No. 11 of 13 THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C fixed to Rs.2,36,500 with effect from 01.04.1999 and to Rs.43,01,300/- with effect from 01.04.2000 only on 30.05.2017 i.e. after the lapse of 17 years.
As such, it can be observed that the rateable value so fixed on 30.05.2017 was on the basis of material available with respondent as on 23.06.2000 itself sought from the appellant vide notice dt. 23.06.2000. Since thereafter, no new fact, document, change in circumstance (if any) or evidence is considered while passing the order dated 30.05.2017.
Had that been the case, there was no bar upon the respondent to pass the said assessment order fixing the rateable value at Rs.2,36,500/- in 2000 and Rs.43,01,300/- in 2001 itself, after issuance of notices dated 06.03.2000, 23.06.2000 and 13.02.2001.
18. Considering the above said facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the assessment order dated 30.05.2017, passed by respondent in terms of notices u/s 72 of NDMC Act dated 06.03.2000 and 13.02.2001 fixing the rateable value to Rs.2,36,500/- with effect from 01.04.1999 and Rs.43,01,300/- with effect from 01.04.2000, is after unreasonable long delay of time, which is clearly in non-compliance of judgment Ved Marwah vs NDMC (supra) passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
HTA 37/25 Page No. 12 of 13THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C
19. In view of the same, the assessment order dated 30.05.2017 along with calculation sheet dated 05.06.2017, and the notices dated 06.03.2000 and 13.02.2001 issued upon the appellant stand set aside. However, in terms of observations made in Ved Marwah's case (supra), respondent is at liberty to rework the assessment by issuing fresh notice for the period commencing from three years prior to the date on which final notices were issued and finalize the assessment within a reasonable time. Further, appellant shall file his objections upon receipt of fresh notice, if any, which shall be duly considered by the respondent and speaking order upon the same shall be passed.
20. Appeal disposed accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV JAINANUBHAV Date: Announced in the open Court JAIN 2025.12.17 16:17:46 on 17.12.2025. +0530 (Anubhav Jain) District Judge-05 (New Delhi District) Patiala House Courts, New Delhi Note: This judgment contains 13 pages and each page has been signed by me.
HTA 37/25 Page No. 13 of 13THE MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. N D M C