Skip to content


Gurmauj Saran Baluja Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Municipal Tax

Court

Delhi High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 248 of 1973

Judge

Reported in

32(1987)DLT206; 1987(13)DRJ195

Acts

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 126(2)

Appellant

Gurmauj Saran Baluja

Respondent

Delhi Municipal Corporation

Advocates:

S. Bhardwaj and; Randhir Jain, Advs

Excerpt:


delhi municipal corporation act, 1957 - section 126(2)--the rateable value of the property was raised and a bill for property tax on the enhanced value was sent to the assessed. the petitioner challenged it on the ground that no notice under section 126(2) of the act was issued. the respondent could not prove that any notice was sent on the petitioner. the impugned bill of demand was quashed. - .....dated 16th august 1973 issued by the delhi municipal corporation for the asst. year 1973-74 on the ground that no notice as required under section 126(2) of the delhi municipal corporation act was issued to the petitioner though the rateable of the property in question was proposed to be enhanced.(2) it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that previous to this asst. year 1973-74, for the asst. year 1967-68 the annual letting value of the property was fixed at rs. 5400 and rs. 675 was levied as tax for that assessment year, however for the asst. year 1973-74 i.e. the period in question the petitioner was being charged rs. 929.40 as property tax because the annual letting value was fixed at rs. 6480. learned counsel submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner and, thereforee, the petitioner was unable to bring to the notice of the respondent that the proposed assessment was not according to law.(3) no counter-affidavit has been filed to the petition, however at the hearing of the case, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the record shows that notice was issued to the petitioner, there is nothing on record to indicate that.....

Judgment:


Sunanda Bhandare, J.

(1) In this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the bill/demand dated 16th August 1973 issued by the Delhi Municipal Corporation for the asst. year 1973-74 on the ground that no notice as required under Section 126(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was issued to the petitioner though the rateable of the property in question was proposed to be enhanced.

(2) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that previous to this asst. year 1973-74, for the asst. year 1967-68 the annual letting value of the property was fixed at Rs. 5400 and Rs. 675 was levied as tax for that assessment year, however for the asst. year 1973-74 i.e. the period in question the petitioner was being charged Rs. 929.40 as property tax because the annual letting value was fixed at Rs. 6480. Learned counsel submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner and, thereforee, the petitioner was unable to bring to the notice of the respondent that the proposed assessment was not according to law.

(3) No counter-affidavit has been filed to the petition, however at the hearing of the case, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the record shows that notice was issued to the petitioner, there is nothing on record to indicate that the notice was served on the petitioner. Learned counsel fairly stated that Section 126(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act requires the respondent to give hearing to a party before the annual letting value is increased,

(4) In view of this position, on this ground alone the petition deserves to be allowed.

(5) In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned bill/demand 16th August 1973 (Annexure 1) is quashed, however the respondent is directed to make a fresh assessment after hearing the petitioner. Since both the parties are represented in this Court, no fresh notice be issued to the petitioner, however the petitioner will appear before the Assistant Assessor & Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, West Zone, Delhi on 18th May 1987. The assessing authority is directed to make a fresh assessment according to law. Needless to say that if the petitioner has made any excess payment, he will be given necessary adjustment for that amount. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //