The judgment emphasizes the distinction between errors in the exercise of jurisdiction and mistakes in the exercise of jurisdiction, and highlights the requirement for notification of revised tax rates and the jurisdictional aspect of invoking Section 123D of the DMC Act.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. The petition impugns; i) the order dated 15th April, 2013 of assessment of property tax of the property of the petitioner University for the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 pursuant to a notice dated 2nd February, 2013 under Section 123D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957; and, ii) demand raised in pursuance thereto.

2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 29th May, 2013, which continues to be in force, the respondent South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) was restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent SDMC. The counsels have been heard.

3. The counsel for the respondent SDMC has at the outset contended that the writ petition is not maintainable owing to the alternative remedy available of statutory appeal to the Municipal Taxation Tribunal (MTT).

4. The senior counsel for the petitioner University, to meet the said objection, has contended that since a jurisdictional issue arises, the writ petition would be maintainable. It is argued that the powers under Section 123D of the DMC Act can be invoked only on the grounds specified in Clauses (a) to (d) thereof and not otherwise.

5. Section 123D of the DMC Act was invoked by the respondent SDMC stating that the petitioner University in the self-assessment for the said three years had paid the tax at the rate of 10% for commercial and at the rate of 7% for residential portion of the property, while the rate of tax applicable as per Notification dated 13th April, 2010 was 15% for commercial and 11% for residential portion of the property.

6. Attention of the senior counsel for the petitioner University has been invited to Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 123D of the DMC Act which empower the Commissioner of the Municipality, to at any time, revise any assessment where the information furnished in the return of self-assessment is found to be incorrect and to reopen any assessment where it has been detected that there is a wilful suppression of information; similarly Clause (d) empowers imposition of penalty not exceeding 30% for giving wrong information or upon wilful suppression of facts being indulged in. It has been enquired from the senior counsel for the petitioner University, whether not the aforesaid stand of the respondent SDMC, if correct, amounts to self-assessment by the petitioner University being incorrect and / or the petitioner University indulging in wilful suppression.

7. The senior counsel for the petitioner University contends that since the website of the respondent SDMC admittedly was prescribing the same rates of taxation as prevalent in earlier years, till the self-assessment of 2012-13, the petitioner University cannot be found fault with.

8. The counsel for the respondent SDMC on the other hand has invited attention to a public notice issued on 13th April, 2010 published in the prominent newspapers of the city, giving the revised rates of tax.

9. In my view, error in assumption of jurisdiction should not be confused with mistake, legal or factual, in exercise of jurisdiction, as held in Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. M/s Shaw Brothers (1992) 1 SCC 534 followed by Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Yashwant Singh Vs. Indian Bank. Following the same, the error, even if any of the SDMC, in invoking Section 123D, cannot be said to be suffering from jurisdictional aspect for the remedy of writ to be available.

10. The senior counsel for the petitioner University has then drawn attention to the last order dated 7th April, 2015 in this petition and contended that the notification recording the revised rates has not been placed on record.

11. Section 109 read with Section 114D of the DMC Act only require the Municipality to specify the rate of taxes from time to time and nowhere require the same to be notified. It thus cannot be said that without notification, the new rate cannot come into force.

12. Else, the effect if any of the w