SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 3460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Najmi Waziri, Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation – Appellant
Versus
B. N. Magon – Respondent
LPA 564 of 2015
Decided On : 23-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for MCD with Ms Shweta, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Respondent in person with Mr Neeraj Gulati, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established is that professional activities, such as those of lawyers, must be expressly included and defined in the statute to be subject to property tax. The court emphasized the rule of strict interpretation of taxation statutes and the need for specific statutory empowerment for taxation.

Headnote:

TAX - Professional Activities - MPD 2021, DMC Act, 1957 - Clause 15.8 of MPD 2021, Section 115 and 115A of DMC Act, 1957, Bye-Laws, 2004

Fact of the Case:

The appeal challenges the judgment holding that services rendered by advocates are professional activities and cannot be subject to tax under the category of business establishment or professional establishment. The court concluded that professional activity carried out by a professional within the parameters mentioned in Clause 15.8 of MPD 2021 does not make the property liable to property tax as a 'business building'.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that professional activities of lawyers do not fall under the category of 'commercial establishment' or 'business activity' and cannot be subject to property tax. The court emphasized that the power to tax must be express, and professional activities must be specifically mentioned and defined in the statute to be subject to tax.

Issues: The issues revolved around whether professional activities of lawyers can be classified as 'business building' and subjected to property tax under the DMC Act, 1957 and Bye-Laws, 2004.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the rule of strict interpretation of taxation statutes and emphasized that professional activities must be expressly included in the categories for taxation. It held that the absence of a statutory empowerment for taxing professional activities of lawyers means that such activities cannot be subjected to property tax.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no merit in challenging the judgment that professional activities of lawyers are not subject to property tax under the DMC Act, 1957 and Bye-Laws, 2004.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

1. This appeal impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed on 27.01.2015 in W.P. (C) 60/2014 holding that services rendered by advocates are professional activities and cannot be classified/categorised or be subject to tax under the category of business establishment or professional establishment. The judgment has concluded as under:

"...

67. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that if MPD 2021, DMC Act, 1957 and Bye-Laws, 2004 are read harmoniously, it would be apparent that where a professional activity is carried out by a professional belonging to a category and within the parameters mentioned in Clause 15.8 of MPD 2021, then the user of premises remains predominantly residential and the said property cannot be assessed to property tax as a `business building'.

68. Consequently, present petition is allowed and the impugned Assessment Order under Section 123D of DMC Act, 1957 passed on 22nd November, 2013 and issued on 11th December, 2013 bearing no. TAX/A&C/SZ/2013/1139/10860 passed by Jt. Assessor & Collector, South Zone, R.K. Puram fixing value at Rs.60,000/- w.e.f. 1st April, 2004 as well as the demand, if any computed on the said basis along with levy for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2012-13 in respect of property bearing no. E-403, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-48 are quashed. The pending application also stands disposed of."

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Delhi Municipal Corporation (`MCD') submits that clause 15.8 of MPD 2021 apropos professional activity does not in any way circumscribe the powers of the Corporation under sections 115 and 115A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (`DMC Act') which read as under:

"115. Exemption of vacant lands and buildings from property tax.

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, property tax shall be levied on all vacant lands and buildings in Delhi except

(i) vacant lands and buildings (other than dwelling houses) exclusively used for agricultural purposes in accordance with the guidelines prescribed in the bye-laws;

(ii) any vacant land or building included in any village abadi, which is occupied for residential purpose by any original owner or his legal heir, subject to a maximum of one hundred square metres of covered space;

(iii) vacant lands or buildings or portions thereof, exclusively used for the purpose of public worship;

(iv) vacant land or buildings or portions thereof, exclusively occupied and used, with the approval of 2[3[the Corporation]], for the purpose of public charity as may be specified in the bye-laws or for the purpose of medical relief to, or education of, the poor, free of charge;

(v) vacant lands or buildings exclusively used for the purpose of public burial or as cremation ground, or any other place used for the disposal of the dead, duly registered under this Act;

(vi) such heritage lands or buildings as are specifically notified for exemption by the Corporation as also such premises as are so specified by the Archeological Survey of India;

(vii) vacant lands and buildings owned exclusively by war widows, gallantry award winners in Defence Forces, Police and Paramilitary Forces as also civilians who have received bravery awards of the highest order from the Government including Annual Bravery Awards given by the President:

Provided that the exemption shall be subject to the condition that

(a) The premises in question is in self-occupation for residential use and no portion thereof is let out for any purpose, whatsoever;

(b) In case the person concerned has more than one property in Delhi, the exemption shall be applicable to only one property which is permanently used for self-residence;

(c) The benefit of exemption shall be limited to the life time of the person concerned, except where the award has been granted posthumously, in which case the exemption will be granted to the widow of the gallantry award

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top