Delhi High Court - Orders
India Tourism Development Corporation ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 9 December, 2020
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 10082/2020 & CM APPLs 32075-32076/2020
INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(ITDC) (UNIT: HOTEL SAMRAT) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate with Ms Shweta Bharti, Mr
Avinash Singh, Mr Ankit Jain and Ms
Sonali Khanna and, Advocates.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Arjun Mitra, Advocate. .
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 09.12.2020 The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
1. The petitioner was paying approximately Rs.45 lacs as annual property tax, in the year 2013. The said amounts have been paid till date to the New Delhi Municipal Council ('NDMC'). The impugned assessment is on the basis of: what a hypothetical tenant would pay to a hypothetical landlord. Comparison is made to other five-star hotels under the jurisdiction of the NDMC. This comparison is ex facie anomalous because albeit hotels may be rated as 'five star', they would not necessarily have the same premium value and their rates would differ from one to the other, both in terms of service as well as room tariffs and food items, etc. While some hotels are owned privately, some are owned by government companies, such as the petitioner.
2. In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be treated similar to the assessment process directed in the case of Hotel Ashok, in terms of the order dated 25.09.2020 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6983/2020 titled „India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) (Unit: Hotel Ashok), which inter alia reads as under:
"...2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned assessment order dated 27.07.2020 issued by the respondent-New Delhi Municipal Council ('NDMC'), fixing rateable value on the basis of the Gross Turnover of another Five-Star Hotel in the jurisdiction of the NDMC. Although the order itself at one stage mentions that the assessment should be based on what a hypothetical tenant would pay to a hypothetical landlord. Para 7 of the impugned order, states as under:
"....The annual rent has to be worked out on the basis of what a hypothetical tenant would be willing to pay "as rent of the premises to a hypothetical landlord who is prepared to let the premises from year to year as they stand having the regard to all the advantages and disadvantages to such premises, such as, the situation, the nature of the property, the obligations and liabilities attached thereto and other features, if any, which enhance or decrease their vale to such a tenant.... "
3. It is argued that the comparison of rateable value of Taj Man Singh Hotel is wholly unjustified because premium attached to every hotel is peculiar to that hotel is dependent on many factors such as facilities provided in the said hotel, its location, its goodwill, etc. Logically the turnover also is dependent on the same. Therefore, the two hotels cannot necessarily be compared to each other.
....
7. Counter affidavit/reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. Should the petitioner have any grievance against the precipitate action of the NDMC, liberty is granted to it to approach the Court..."
3. Reply and rejoinder be filed in 4 weeks each, successively.
4. List on 03.02.2021.
5. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J DECEMBER 09, 2020/rd