Back
High Court Of Delhi
DCM LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 3807 of 1997
Decided On : 04/03/1998
PROPERTY TAX - ASSESSMENT - NOTICE - VALIDITY - DISCLOSURE OF BASIS - NATURAL JUSTICE - HEARING - SAME OFFICER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) revising the ratable value of its property. The petitioner contended that the notice issued under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act) was invalid as it did not disclose the basis for the proposed revision of the ratable value. The petitioner also challenged the assessment order on the ground that the hearing was given by one officer while the order was passed by another officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notice issued under Section 126 of the Act was invalid as it did not disclose the basis for the proposed revision of the ratable value. The court further held that the assessment order was also invalid as the hearing was given by one officer while the order was passed by another officer.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice issued under Section 126 of the Act was valid? 2. Whether the assessment order was invalid as the hearing was given by one officer while the order was passed by another officer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notice issued under Section 126 of the Act was invalid as it did not disclose the basis for the proposed revision of the ratable value. The court observed that the notice is mandatory and the statute recognized a well established principle of natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard. To give meaning to this right of assessee it is only just and fair that the notice should contain some basic facts which enable the notice to know what is the case it has to meet. This will enable it to make an effective representation against the proposal. 2. The court held that the assessment order was also invalid as the hearing was given by one officer while the order was passed by another officer. The court observed that the requirement of oral hearing to be given to the assessee is implicit in view of the statutory provisions. Section 124 (5) which deals with objections to the assessment list clearly provides for an opportunity of hearing to the party affected. Section 126 which has been applied in the present case, as noticed earlier, contains a mandatory requirement of notice and also provides for an opportunity to the assessee to file objections to the proposal. It also enjoins on the Commissioner to consider the objections of the assessee in response to the notice under Section 126.
Final Decision: The court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the concerned authority for fresh assessment in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated 11th August, 1997 passed by the Joint Assessor and Collector, Karol Bagh Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, determining the ratable value of the property of the petitioner at Rs. 15,17,52,000. 00 per annum w. e. f. 1. 4. 1993. The existing ratable value of the property of the petitioner was Rs. 6,44,890. 00. The same was proposed to be revised to Rs. 15,17,52,000. 00 , vide a notice dated 29th March. , 1994 under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The reason for amendment of the ratable value given in the notice is "plot, after demolishing of the structure for development". The notice called upon the petitioner to file objections, if any, against the proposed ratable value within 35 days of the service of the notice. In response to the said notice of the Corporation for revision of the ratable value the petitioner filed objections dated 5th May, 1994. Copies of the notice under Section 126 as well as the objections filed by the petitioner in response thereto have been annexed as Annxs. P-7 and P-8 to the writ petition. In its objections the first and foremost plea taken by the petitioner was that the Corporation should disclose the basis for arriving at the figure of Rs. 15,17,52,000. 00 so that the petitioner could effectively reply to the notice. The petitioner said in its reply/objections that "no information has been disclosed to us how the Corporation arrived at a figure of Rs. 15,17,52,000. 00 as the proposed ratable value w. e. f. 1st April, 1993. Without knowing the basis of the determination of the said figure we are unable to give effective reply or response in reply thereto". In a nutshell the petitioner wants to know what is the case of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which it is required to meet. It was further stated by the petitioner that in the absence of full information and details the notice in question was invalid, illegal and ultra vires. Besides this several objections were taken qua the proposed amount of the ratable value.
( 2 ) ALTHOUGH an objection was taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that in view of the provision of appeal contained in Sections 169 and 170 of the Act the present writ petition is not maintainable, yet at the time of hearing this objection was not pressed and, therefore, this aspect of the matter need not be gone into.
( 3 ) ON merits the learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the very basis of the revision of the ratable value. It was submitted that Section 116 (2) of the Act has no application in the facts of the present case. The building was in the course of reconstruction. The erstwhile structure had been demolished for purposes of reconstruction. The land underneath the structure had become an open piece of land temporarily because the existing structure had been demolished and the new structure is to be put up. In such cases where land temporarily becomes an open piece of land. Section 116 (2) of the Act has no application. The case ought to have been treated as of a building under reconstruction. The moment reconstruction was complete, notice would be given to the Corporation as envisaged under Section 129 of the Act and the assessment for property taxes will follow. The Corporation appeared to be proceeding on the basis of potential market value of the land which it was deriving from a brochure issued by the petitioner and its collaborators who had entered into a commercial venture to develop the land. The brochure only contained projections which could not be made basis for the market value of the land on the date of the impugned proposal.
( 4 ) IN this connection it was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 1st April, 1993, i. e. the date from which the ratable value was proposed to be revised, the entire building had not even been demolished. In this connection our attention was invited to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
