IMPORTANT POINT
Assessment orders based on invalid Bye-laws are unlawful; NDMC must reassess in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

CM APPL. 67158/2024 (for condonation of delay in filing rejoinder)

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of 37 days delay in filing rejoinder.

2. For the reasons stated in the application and with the consent of learned counsel for the respondent, the application is allowed and delay is condoned.

3. The Registry is directed to place the rejoinder on record.

W.P.(C) 11736/2019 & CM APPL. 48203/2019 (for interim order) & CM APPL. 38833/2021 (for directions)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, assailing a demand of Rs. 2,22,12,090/- towards property tax in respect of property bearing No.17, Tughlaq Road, New Delhi.

2. I have heard Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-New Delhi Municipal Council [“NDMC”].

3. The impugned demand appears on an extract of the portal of NDMC, a printout of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-1. The demand is predicated on two assessment orders, one dated 01.02.2016 and the other dated 16.10.2019. The rateable value computed in the two assessment orders has been tabulated in Column 10 as follows:

4. Evidently, the assessment order dated 01.02.2016 provided for computation of the rateable value for three different periods, commencing from 01.04.2004, 01.04.2010 and 01.04.2013. A perusal of the said assessment order [Annexure P-10 to the writ petition] shows that, for the period from 01.04.2004, the rateable value proposed by NDMC was Rs. 47,100/-, based upon comparative rent basis. For the subsequent periods, NDMC carried out the assessments on the basis of NDMC (Determination of Annual Rent) Bye-laws, 2009 [“2009 Bye-laws”], by which the Unit Area Method [“UAM”] was introduced.

5. In the assessment order dated 01.02.2016, the petitioner’s contention has been noted, that it had challenged the 2009 Bye-laws as a member of the Association of the Concerned Citizens of New Delhi, which filed WP(C) 3348/2010 before this Court. NDMC, however, noted that this Court had not granted any stay against the 2009 Bye-laws, and that an interim order had been passed that in the event any tax is paid, which is ultimately found not to be payable, the Court can direct refund at the stage of final hearing. On this basis, the objections filed by the petitioner were rejected, and rateable value was computed at the rate of Rs. 84,80,200/- from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013, and Rs. 1,01,76,300/-from 01.04.2013 onwards. The said assessment order contains a detailed calculation, and applies the formula for calculation of rateable value, from which it is clear that the UAM had been applied.

6. The petitioner assailed the assessment order dated 01.02.2016 in a writ petition before this Court [WP(C) 3176/2017]. By order dated 17.04.2017, the petitioner was directed to deposit the tax arrears for three base years and relegated to the remedy of appeal. The order was challenged before the Division Bench in LPA No. 351/2017, but the appeal was withdrawn by order dated 09.05.2017.

7. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in terms of the aforesaid orders [Appeal No. 12/2017]. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, WP(C) 3348/2010 came to be decided, alongwith a batch of other writ petitions challenging the UAM. This Court held that the 2009 Bye-laws were ultra vires the powers of NDMC under the NDMC Act, 1994. The operative directions contained in the judgement of the Division Bench dated 10.08.2017, relevant for the adjudication of this writ petition, are as follow