Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Atul Sethi - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9893 of 2021
Decided On : 08-09-2021
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Taxation
Headnote
(B) Assessment Procedures - Seeking an accurate assessment requires physical inspection post-submission of tax returns by the petitioner. (Paras 8-13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contests the erroneous assessment based on a faulty count of floors and excessive area assessment, compounded by a failure to file returns due to an ongoing dispute on the property.
Findings of Court:
The assessment order dated 01.12.2020 was set aside, with directions for the petitioner to file property tax returns.
Issues: Main issues include the legality of applying the Unit Area Method and the correctness of the assessment based on physical characteristics of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fresh assessment based on a physical inspection following the filing of tax returns.
Result: Petition disposed of, assessment order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging assessment order on procedural grounds (Para 2 , 3 , 9) |
| 2. errors in assessment method and property details (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's directive for fresh assessment procedure (Para 7 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. respondent's willingness to reassess (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. final order and instructions for compliance (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns Assessment Order dated 01.12.2020, whereby suo motu assessment under Section 123 AB/D of the DMC (Amendment) Act, 2003 under Unit Area Method has been done.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD. However, as the Appellate Tribunal is not functional, he is constrained to approach this Court.
4. Leaned counsel submits that the Unit Area Method applied has already been struck down by Division Bench of this Court and said order has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the assessment order dated 01.12.2020 is clearly erroneous as it has been mentioned that there are three floors in the subject property whereas the property is only a single storey structure.
6. He further submits that the covered area has been taken far in excess of the actual area of the property and even age factor has been applied as `1', whereas the property is an old constructed property.
7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondent.
8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the subject assessment order was passed as petitioner had failed to file the property tax returns. He submits that Respondents are willing to pass a fresh assessment order after inspection of the property.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that since there was ongoing dispute in respect of the subject property and was lying vacant, returns were not filed since the year 2005-2006.
10. He further submits that respondent may carry out physical inspection of the property and thereafter, pass a fresh assessment order.
11. In view of the above, the assessment order dated 01.12.2020 is set aside. Petitioner is directed to file his property tax returns for the period 2005-06 onwards within a period of two weeks from today.
12. On filing of the property tax returns, respondent shall carry out a physical inspection of the property of the petitioner and thereafter, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, pass a fresh speaking assessment order.
13. This would be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with regard to delayed filing of property tax returns.
14. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
15. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
