Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(4) The resolution was given a wide publicity. It was incorporated in Property Tax Guide released by the Corporation. Pamphlets were issued and advertisements inserted in the newspapers entitled "Good News for Property Tax Payers". News items were also published. The lax payers were persuaded to take advantage of the Scheme and make payment of tax and earn exemption for all times, also save themselves from the cumbersome process of assessment and payment recurring year by year.

(5) On 18.2.89, the Corporation issued departmental instruction No.6/89 which reads as under :- Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (ASSESSMENT And Collector DEPARTMENT) S.P.MUKERJEE Marg, OPP.DELHI Rly STN., Delhi -110 006. No.A&0(PO)/HQ/PA(B)/89/ll/72/124 Dated:18.2.1989. Departmental Instruction N0.6/89 Sub : Lumpsum Payment Scheme-Clarification Regarding This is in continuation of the Departmental Instruction No.-25/88 dated 01.11.1988. As and when a request for payment of tax under this Scheme is received, the Joint Assessor and Collector or his nominee in the Special Assessment Unit and Deputy A&Cs. in the head quarters or the Zones should collect the concerned file and see that, if any, I.D. action is pending, the same - is taken and balance of payable is reported to the tax-payer. If a proposal Under Section 126 is pending the tax payer may be informed of the tendency of the proposal and he may be informed that as and when the rateable value increases on the disposal of the 126 proposal or on the decision of any appeal/writ petition filed by the Department, he will have an option to pay the property taxes in lumpsum on the increase in rateable value. Similarly, if there is any increase in the rateable value hereinafter he will have an option to pay the 10 years tax on the difference in the rateable value or pay the taxes on year to year basis. The rateable value on which the tax payer shall not be required to pay the taxes in future should also be intimated. 2. The payment should be accepted only after written orders of the Jt. A&C or his nominee/Dy.A&COs. and not in the routine way at the counters. This should be ensured that G-8 receipts are properly issues i.e. one receipt for the tax for 1988/89 and the other for nine years in advance in "SPECIAL Capital Reserve FUND". 3. On the G-8 receipts to be issued, the following rubber stamp should be affixed :-

(11) According to the respondent-corporation the Scheme formulated is referable to Section 177 to Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. What the scheme exempts for future is the rateable value and not the property itself. If the rateable value increases, the exemption shall be confined to the rateable value on which the tax has been collected. The scheme does not preclude the Corporation from enhancing the rateable value consequent to a change in law or otherwise such as on account of additions in the properly or change in user thereof, which factors have the effect of enhancing the rateable value of I the properly, The variables responsible for such enhancement may be man made or made by legislation. The scheme has since been discontinued and is no more in existence w.e.f. the assess me year 1991-92 and onwards.

(17) The above said discussion leads to the following conclusions :- (i) The rateable value of any property having been assessed and the rateable value so assessed having become subject matter of lump sum payment scheme, cannot be subjected to tax so long as the rateable value cannot be subjected to amendment by reference to the power exercisable by the Corporation under Section 126 or 127 of the Act. (ii) In case of increase in the rateable value of the properly on account of any of the factors contemplated by Clauses (b),(d), (f) & (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the Act, the Corporation may revise the rateable value of the property though it has been subject matter of lump sum payment scheme at any earlier point of time. In respect of the added or enhanced rateable value the liability for payment of tax may be met either year by year or exemption for life from payment of tax even on such added or enhanced rateable value may be claimed by availing benefit of lump sum payment scheme under which benefit has already been availed for the unaltered part of the rateable value. Such an exemption may be claimed though the variable contributing to the increase in rateable value has come into existence at a point of time and in a year of assessment by which the lump sum payment scheme has ceased to exist. This will be because of the phraseology used in the Scheme as originally framed contemplating benefit of lumpsum payment scheme being extended to further increase in rateable value of such properties subsequently also. The above said construction also accords with the stand taken by the learned Senior Advocate Mr.V.P.Singh, appearing for the Corporation, (18) Placing reliance on M/s.Motilal Padampal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. VS. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ; Centaury Spinning & Manufacturing Co.Ud. & Anr. VS. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council &Anr" ; The. Union of India & Ors. VS. Mis. Angle Afghan Agencies etc., Air 1968 Sc 718; Collector of Bombay VS. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay & Ors. Air (38) 1951 469 it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-MCD is estopped from going back on its representation and it cannot be permitted to recover tax from the persons or on the properties, once benefit of exemption from payment of tax was extended to any of them under the lump sum payment of tax scheme. The contention has to be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, we do not find either in the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation or in the bye-laws or in the publicity made by the Municipal Corporation in the newspapers, anywhere any statement made or representation held out by Mod that any person or property forming subject matter of lump sum payment of tax scheme shall be exempted from payment of tax for all limes to come. The exemption is confined to the rateable value forming subject mailer of the scheme. Secondly, we have examined the relevant provisions of the Act and found the power to tax and power to exempt all statutorily provided and defined. If some one has made some statement holding out an exemption which goes beyond what the scheme of exemption contemplated, it cannot bind the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 18.1 In Brig.S. C.L.Malik A Vsm (Retd.) VS. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. 1996 (1) Ad Delhi 644, the Division Bench has held while repelling a similar arguments :- Assuming for the sake of argument that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi at any time made some announcement or published a pamphlet for general information of the public and it contains some statement which may be at variance with the law, it is the law which will prevail and not any statement made by any official of the MCD. In any case, we have in our judgment dealt with the law and the law has to prevail. No statement made contrary to law can attract the applicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel." 18.2 In A Nz Grindlay Bank Pie. VS. Commissioner of Mcd 1995 (2) Ad Delhi 573 also this Court has vide paragraphs 120 to 124 rejected the arguments based on the plea of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectations by holding that the doctrine or promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government of the public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is prohibited by law or which was devoid of the authority or power of the officer of the Government or the public authority to make the same and that a legitimate expectation to be so has to be legitimate and not illegitimate one. 18.3 There can be no estoppel against statute, is a preposition of law too well settled and hardly needs any authority to be cited to support the same. 18.4 We cannot hold that by promulgating the lump sum payment scheme of tax the Corporation is estopped from exercising its statutory power to amend the assessment list under Sections 126/127 of the Act, where the applicability of those provisions is attracted.

(19) Having so staled the law, we now proceed to deal with the individual cases. Common Cause a public Organisation & Ors. VS. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. This petition appears to have been filed more or less in public interest seeking a general relief though petitioners No.2 to 7 ( six individuals) have also joined in filing the petition claiming reliefs personal to themselves. The relief prayed for is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to implement resolutions No.990, 1029 and 1030 dated 10.2.86 and similar resolutions passed in the month of February, 1987 to 1990 by the Corporation so that the rateable value in respect of the properties as to which benefit of lumpsum payment scheme has been claimed in any of the above said 5 financial years may not be revised. Cw 4895/94 Smt.Reena Suri & Anr. Vs. Mcd & Anr. In this petition the property is No..16, Cc, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The rateable value is sought to be increased due to 're- erection/addition/alterations and letting of the building or part thereof vide notice dated 23.3.91 (Annexure P-4A). The operative part of the assessment order, passed by the assessing authority and impugned in the petition, itself states - "the above rateable value is, however, subject to rectification if the assessee Files necessary documents within two months from the date of this order." The order of assessment itself has thus left scope open to the petitioners to file documents and seek rectification if permitted by law. Cw 2818/95 Sh. Mohinder Kumar Jain VS. Mcd The impugned order of assessment dated 22.11.93 (Annexure P-7) reveals the rateable value having undergone a change on account of change in the user of the premises as also in the rate of rent of the premises in occupation of the tenant. Cw 3967/94 Sh.Satya Paul Vaid VS. Mcd The impugned order of assessment dated 30.3.94 (Annexure P-9) has been passed in the absence of the petitioner for his failure to avail the opportunity of hearing. He was served with a notice Annexure P-5 requiring him to show cause against the proposed amendment in the assessment list so as to incorporate increase in rateable value due to amendment in Drc Act. Rateable value as proposed has been accepted as the petitioner did not join in the assessment proceedings and failed to produce any material to form an opinion against the proposed increase. Cw 3533/94 M/s.Peevee Enterprises VS. Mcd & Anr. The rateable value has been revised and increased vide order of assessment dated 4.3.94 (Annexure P-9) on account of the properly having gone beyond the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act consequent to the amendment w.c.f 1.12.88 noticed hereinabove. Cw 30/96 Shri L.C. Jain Vs. Mcd & Anr. There was no assessment finalised till the date of the filing of the petition. Only notice was issued to the petitioner proposing a revision of the rateable value. Without awaiting Finalisation of the revision of rateable value pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent, the petitioner has rushed post-haste to this Court by filing this petition and sought for stay of the proceedings by an interim order dated 4.1.96 the Court had restrained final decision being taken in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Cw 4317/94 M/s.Vibha Jain Trust VS. Mcd & Anr. Vide the impugned order of assessment dated 22.2.94 (Annexure P-11) the rateable value has been revised due to increase in the rate of rent as also due to amendment in Delhi Rent Control Act w.e.f. 1.12.88 and consequent change in the very basis of the assessment of the rateable value. Cw 743/95 Smt. Mani Devi Jain VS. Mcd The impugned order of assessment dated 15.3.94 (Annexure P-11) has revised the assessment of retable value mainly due to increase .in rent and amendment in Delhi Rent Control Act w.e.f. 1.12.88. Cw 1996/94 Sh.Gopal Balachandni & Ors. VS. Mcd The impugned order of assessment dated 22,3.94 (Annexure R-3) has revised the rateable value consequent to amendment in Delhi Rent Control Act w.e.f. 1.12.88, as also to carry out the directions contained in an appellate order. The Assessing Authority has called for some information from the assessee which the assessee (petitioner) had failed to furnish. Cw 2768/95 Dev Kumari Sood VS. Mcd The impugned order of assessment dated 31.3.95 (Annexure P-15) has revised the rateable value on account of letting out of the property and amendment in the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. The assessment order records the assessee having defaulted in furnishing any specific proof regarding rent received, security advance taken etc. Inspite of having passed the order of assessment the Deputy Assessor and Collector has directed - 'the case could be considered for reassessment if the tax payer file the requisite information.' Cw 2599/95 Smt.Mridula Dugar VS. Mcd & Anr. By impugned order of assessment dated 16.3.95 (Annexure P-7) the rateable value has been revised on account of increase in the rental value of the premises. Inspite of the order of assessment having been finalised, the order of assessment states - "The above rateable values have been fixed upon the basis of the information furnished by the tax payer. If any information to the contrary is received and are R.V. calls for increase, the same shall be carried out through rectification of this order." Cw 3075/95 Mrs. Krishna Prakash VS. Mod & Anr. The impugned order of assessment dated 28.2.95 (Annexure P-5) has been finalised for failure of the assessee to furnish the requisite information inspite of opportunity having been allowed for the purpose. In an objection filed in response to notice proposing amendment in the assessment list, the assessee had taken stand that there was no change in the property and no addition/alterations made which might have the effect altering the rateable value. The assessee has taken benefit of lumpsum payment of tax scheme. Though the reason for revision of rateable value might have been amendment in the Drc Act, but the order of assessment does not say so. Notice proposing amendment in the assessment list issued by the respondent and served on the assessee has not been filed by the petitioner. The respondent Mcd has not filed any counter. The tenor of the impugned order (Annexure P-5) shows that if the Assessing Authority has proceeded on any misapprehension as to the facts then the scope for rectification in the order of assessment is still open and may be availed of by the assessee petitioner, Cw 2598/95 Smt. Kiran Mani Jain VS. Mcd & Anr. The impugned order of assessment dated 23.3.95 (Annexure P-U) shows the rateable value having been revised due to amendment in Drc Act. The only contention raised by the assessee was that in view of the assessee and the property being covered by the lumpsum payment of lax scheme, the revision in rateable value was not permissible. The assessee did not file any proof regarding the present position of the property i.e. whether it was self-occupied or rented. The revision in rateable value as proposed by the notice was confirmed by the order of assessment. May be that the assessee did not furnish the relevant and required information belabouring under impression that revision in rateable value was not permissible in view of the lump sum payment of tax scheme. The order is still open to rectification if it proceeds on any factually incorrect premises and if the assessee may furnish correct information which may have an impact on the figure of rateable value arrived at by the Assessing authority. Cw 3965/94 Sh.Dharam Bhushan Jain VS. Mcd Vide order of Assessment dated 13.6.94 (Annexure P-8), the rateable value has been revised due to amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act w.e.f. 1.12.88. The property is commercial and rateable value has been fixed at Rs.3100.00 w.e.f.l.4.88 and at Rs.3600.00 w.e.f. 1.12.88. In his reply Annexure P-7 to the notice dated 16.8.91 the only plea taken by the petitioner is that the rateable value was not open to revision in view of the lump sum payment of tax scheme. The quantum of rateable value as proposed and upheld by the order of assessment was not disputed by the Assessee. Cw 166/96 V.M.Thukral VS. Mcd & Anr. The impugned order of assessment dated 23.11.95 (Annexure P-8) has revised the rateable value, due to increase in the rate of rent. The figures of the rent received as furnished by the petitioner have been accepted by the Assessing Authority. The only pica taken by the Assessee was that the rateable value was not liable to be revised in view of the lump sum payment ol' tax scheme. 19, All the above said petitions are disposed of in terms of the following orders :- (i) In Cwp 997/94, the petitioner Common Cause - a public organisation, the petitioner No. 1 is held not entitled to any relief. The petitioners No.2 to 7 are also held not entitled to any relief in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed. The petitioners No.2 to 7 arc, however, allowed liberty of filing appeals against their individual orders of assessment and seek condensation of delay in filing the appeals by having resort to Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. (ii) Cwp 2818/95, 3967/94, 3533/94, 4317/94, 743/95, 1896/94, 3965/94 and 166/96 arc also dismissed as the petitioners therein arc held not entitled to the grant of any relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Each of the petitioners would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order of assessment and seek condensation of delay in filing the appeal by having resort to Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. (ill) CWPs 4895/94, 2768/95, 2599/95, 3075/95, 2598/95 are dismissed in as much as the petitioners in these petitions are still at liberty to approach the Assessing Authority, make a true and correct statement of facts as to the state of affairs of the property and produce such documents and information as may be in their possession or power so as to assist the Assessing Authority in arriving at a correct rateable value. If any of the petitioners in the CWPs mentioned in this sub-para may approach the Assessing Authority within a period of two months from today and make a request for rehearing and rectification in the order of assessment staling the grounds in support of suggested relief, then the assessing authority shall entertain the prayer and appoint a date of hearing and then dispose of the question of assessment of rateable value afresh. (iv) CWPs 30/96 is dismissed as premature. The interim order dated 4.1.95 stands vacated. The assessing authority is at liberty to finalise the order of assessment after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner if, aggrieved by the final order of the assessment, shall have remedy against it allowed by law.