IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
MS Wing Flow Constructions Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council AMP ANR - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5530 of 2021 & CM. Appl. 17147 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to demand notices regarding property tax (Para 2) |
| 2. disputed service of notices and assessment procedures (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's directions for re-assessment and withdrawal of attachment (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final conclusion and order disposition (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns demand notices dated 25.02.2020, 04.03.2021, warrants of attachment dated 09.04.2021 and assessment orders pursuant to which demand notices have been raised in respect of property numbers G-43, 26, 76, 68/91, G-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi having property ID P-5371.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits after the initial notice of 29.03.2003, petitioner was not served with the alleged notices under Section 72 of the NDMC Act or the assessment order dated 17.02.2017.
4. Learned counsel submits that since the notices were not served, petitioner did not have any opportunity of producing the requisite material to show the actual rent received by the petitioner or file objections to the said notices.
5. This is disputed by learned counsel for respondent. He submits that all notices were duly sent. He, however, concedes that no objection was ever received to any of the notices or any material produced before the Council for ascertaining the actual rent and property tax.
6. He submits that since no material was produced, the respondents had no option but to assess the properties on comparable rent of similar properties in the area.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.34,94,563/- on 07.05.2015. He submits that without prejudice, petitioner is willing to pay a further sum of Rs.60,00,000/- to the respondent and furnish all material and documents for the purposes of re-assessment with effect from assessment years 2002-03.
8. Learned counsel submits that he shall not raise the objection of limitation for the purposes of re-assessing of property with effect from assessment year 2002-03 onwards.
9. Subject to petitioner paying a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- to the respondent within a period of three weeks from today, the impugned assessment order dated 17.02.2017 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the assessing authority to re-assess the property with effect from assessment year 2002-03.
10. Petitioner is given liberty to file objections supported with documents and evidence within a period of three weeks from today.
11. Respondent would thereafter be at liberty to pass a fresh assessment order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
12. On petitioner depositing the said sum of Rs.60,00,000/- within three weeks, warrants of attachment dated 09.04.2021, attaching the Account No.1075326553 of the Petitioner with Central Bank of India, Connaught Circus, shall stand quashed. On petitioner furnishing the proof of deposit of the said amount with the respondent, the Manager, Central Bank of India shall lift the attachment of the said account.
13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All rights and contentions of Parties are reserved.
14. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through e-mail by the Court Master.
Point of law : On petitioner furnishing the proof of deposit of the said amount with the respondent, the Manager, Central Bank of India shall lift attachment of the said account.
Point of law: On petitioner furnishing the proof of deposit of the said amount with the respondent, the Manager, Central Bank of India shall lift attachment of the said account
The assessing authority must consider submitted objections before amending the assessment list, ensuring compliance with statutory obligations and providing fair opportunity for hearing.
Taxation - Assessment - Impugned order is not sustainable as same has been passed contrary to sub-section (2) of Section 72.
Quash of Assessment – Demand notice - Order records to the contrary that no response has been received from the recorded owner with regard to the said notice.
A party must be given a fair opportunity to present objections and evidence before an assessment decision is made.
The necessity of a fair hearing is paramount, particularly when external circumstances, like a nationwide lockdown, impede a party's compliance with procedural requirements.
The court emphasized the need for a fair assessment process and proper adherence to legal procedures when imposing retrospective tax liabilities.
The court emphasized the significance of considering objections and relevant documents filed by the petitioner in the assessment process, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned assessment ....
Ex-parte order set aside - Matter is remitted to the Assessing authority to pass a fresh assessment order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.