Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Dabur India Limited vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 14 May, 2024
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5563/2024, CM APPL. 22933/2024
M/S DABUR INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Sr. Adv.
alongwith Mr. Arnav Sanyal, Adv.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharma, SC for MCD
alongwith Mr. Pardeep Suhag, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORDER
% 14.05.2024
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the demand notices dated 26.10.2023, 28.02.2023 & 08.07.2021, property tax bills dated 22.05.2023, 02.09.2022, 14.11.2021, 10.11.2020 & 18.03.2020 and the assessment order dated 18.08.2022 issued by the respondent with respect to the property bearing flat no. A-1 To A-4, B-1 to B-4, C-1 to C-4, No. 3, Factory Road, New Delhi 110029.
2. The primary submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the rateable value of the property in question has been increased without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without compliance with the provisions of Section 70 and 72 of the NDMC Act, 1994.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been diligently filing the property tax returns till date based on the rateable value of Rs.1,08,25,100/-. No notice under Section 72 of the NDMC Act, 1994 or any other provision 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 15/05/2024 at 23:54:55 of the NDMC Act, 1994 is stated to have been ever sent by the respondent seeking to revise the said rateable value.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the rateable value of the property was revised to Rs.1,29,90,218/- for the years 2013-14 to 2015- 16 and to Rs. 1,84,09,900/- for the years 2016-17 to 2019-20.
5. The demand/s that have been sought to be raised on the petitioner are on the basis of the aforesaid enhanced rateable value i.e., Rs.1,29,90,218/- for the years 2013-14 to 2015-16 and Rs. 1,84,09,900/- for the years 2016- 17 to 2019-20.These demands have been impugned since the unilateral increase in rateable value, without giving any notice to the petitioner, is stated to be wholly in derogation and violation of the statutory prescription.
6. Issue notice. Learned counsel as aforesaid accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
7. In response to a specific query, learned counsel for the respondent concedes that no notice, including any notice under Section 72, was given to the petitioner before increasing the rateable value. It is, however, submitted that the same was not required.
8. Prima facie, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is unacceptable in view of the judgment dated 29.07.2003 of this Court in W.P.(C) 2232/2002 titled as Smt.Jayshree Kumar Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council, wherein it has been inter alia observed as under :-
"18. It is thus contended that Section 72 of the Act itself makes the assessee liable to pay tax only after the notice is issued and specially mandates in the negative that no person shall be liable, by reason of the amendment, to pay the tax or increase of tax in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the year in which the notice is given. In fact, it was contended that apart from the fact that the letters of the petitioner were not amounting to any consent to pay tax, such 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 15/05/2024 at 23:54:55 consent could not have force of law.
..........
24. The factual matrix is also not disputed that the notices issued were only for the assessment year 1998-99 onwards. The reading of the provision of Section 72 is absolutely clear. In fact, the proviso is in the negative form making the assessed not liable to pay any tax or increase of tax as a consequence of the amendment of the list under sub-section (1) unless a notice is issued under sub-section (2). Thus, a plain reading of the Section itself makes it clear that there would be no liability on the Assessee for the period where no such notice has been issued."
9. Let reply be filed by the respondent within a period of 4 weeks from today.
10. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that till the next date of hearing, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the amount demanded vide notice dated 26.10.2023 within a period of 3 weeks from today, no coercive/precipitative steps shall be taken by the respondent qua the property in question.
11. List on 12.07.2024.
SACHIN DATTA, J MAY 14, 2024/at 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 15/05/2024 at 23:54:55