Tara Chandra Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/949039
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnApr-10-2012
Case NumberW.P.(C) No.11192 OF 2009
Judge RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
AppellantTara Chandra Sharma
RespondentMunicipal Corporation of Delhi and Another
Excerpt:
constitution of india – article 226 - delhi municipal corporation act, 1957 - section 116(g)(2) - application for review - respondent mcd demanded from petitioner a sum of rs.46,668 towards property tax - petitioner filed writ impugning the demand – court disposes the writ petition by remanding the matter to the respondent for fresh determination - if petitioner seeks assessment under unit area method said request would be dealt with as per law - assistant assessor and collector of the respondent assessed the annual value of the said flat at rs.35,970 in accordance with (unit area method) but directed the tax to be computed for the period prior to the coming into force of the uam at the rates as prevalent in the relevant year – as aggrieved by the petitioner preferred for appeal to the municipal taxation tribunal –rajiv sahai endlaw, j: 1. this writ petition impugns, the order dated 31.12.2008 of the municipal taxation tribunal dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, as also the order dated 02.06.2009 dismissing the application for review sought by the petitioner. 2. the respondent mcd vide notice dated 05.01.2006 demanded from the petitioner a sum of rs.46,668/- towards property tax of flat no.288, supreme cooperative group housing society, mayur vihar, phase-i, delhi. the petitioner filed w.p.(c) no.5616/2006 in this court impugning the said demand. the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2006 by remanding the matter to the respondent mcd for fresh determination; while doing so, it was also observed “if petitioner seeks assessment under unit area method said request would be dealt with as per law.” 3. the assistant assessor and collector of the respondent mcd vide order dated 11.01.2007 assessed the annual value of the said flat at rs.35,970/- in accordance with unit area method (uam) but directed the tax to be computed for the period prior to the coming into force of the uam at the rates as prevalent in the relevant year. 4. the petitioner thereafter filed w.p.(c) no.1683/2007; though no grievance to the determination of annual value at rs.35,970/- was made but it was contended that the rate of tax for the period, even prior to the coming into force of the uam, should be as under the uam and not as prevalent in the relevant years. the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.08.2008 by directing the petitioner to appear before the assessor and collector of the respondent mcd for computation of the amount payable by the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. the assistant assessor and collector of the respondent mcd thereafter computed the tax and for the years prior to the coming into force of the uam applied the rates of tax prevalent in the relevant years. 6. aggrieved therefrom the petitioner preferred the appeal aforesaid to the municipal taxation tribunal. 7. the tribunal has in the orders dated 31.12.2008 and 02.06.2009 (supra) negatived the plea of the appellant, relying on the dicta dated 18.11.2005 of this court in w.p.(c) no.20255/2005 titled sh. pramod kumar jain vs. municipal corporation of delhi. it was held by this court in the said judgment that even where under section 116(g)(2) of the delhi municipal corporation act, 1957 assessments pending at the time of coming into force of uam are permitted to be done under the uam, the rate of taxation has to be as prevalent in the relevant year and not as prevalent under the uam. it was held that while section 116(g) was concerned with assessment of annual value, the rate of tax is to be determined under section 114(d). i may notice that another single judge of this court in ritu sengupta vs. mcd 152(2008) dlt 68 has also followed the same view. 8. the counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not covered by the dicta aforesaid in sh. pramod kumar jain (supra) for the reason of this court in w.p.(c) 5616/2006 filed by the petitioner having specifically directed that if the petitioner seeks assessment under the uam, his said request would be so dealt with. he thus contends that the petitioner under the umbrella of the said order is liable for rate of tax also as under the uam. 9. i am unable to accept the said contention of the counsel for the petitioner. the purport of the observation quoted above in the order dated 17.04.2006 in w.p.(c) no.5616/2006 earlier preferred by the petitioner was only to, not deprive the petitioner of the benefit of section 116(g)(2) of the act. the intent thereof was not to carve out a different law for the petitioner. 10. there is no merit in the petition. the same is dismissed. no order as to costs.
Judgment:

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J:

1. This writ petition impugns, the order dated 31.12.2008 of the Municipal Taxation Tribunal dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, as also the order dated 02.06.2009 dismissing the application for review sought by the petitioner.

2. The respondent MCD vide notice dated 05.01.2006 demanded from the petitioner a sum of Rs.46,668/- towards property tax of Flat No.288, Supreme Cooperative Group Housing Society, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.5616/2006 in this Court impugning the said demand. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2006 by remanding the matter to the respondent MCD for fresh determination; while doing so, it was also observed “if petitioner seeks assessment under Unit Area Method said request would be dealt with as per law.”

3. The Assistant Assessor and Collector of the respondent MCD vide order dated 11.01.2007 assessed the annual value of the said flat at Rs.35,970/- in accordance with Unit Area Method (UAM) but directed the tax to be computed for the period prior to the coming into force of the UAM at the rates as prevalent in the relevant year.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.1683/2007; though no grievance to the determination of annual value at Rs.35,970/- was made but it was contended that the rate of tax for the period, even prior to the coming into force of the UAM, should be as under the UAM and not as prevalent in the relevant years. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.08.2008 by directing the petitioner to appear before the Assessor and Collector of the respondent MCD for computation of the amount payable by the petitioner in accordance with law.

5. The Assistant Assessor and Collector of the respondent MCD thereafter computed the tax and for the years prior to the coming into force of the UAM applied the rates of tax prevalent in the relevant years.

6. Aggrieved therefrom the petitioner preferred the appeal aforesaid to the Municipal Taxation Tribunal.

7. The Tribunal has in the orders dated 31.12.2008 and 02.06.2009 (supra) negatived the plea of the appellant, relying on the dicta dated 18.11.2005 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.20255/2005 titled Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It was held by this Court in the said judgment that even where under Section 116(G)(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 assessments pending at the time of coming into force of UAM are permitted to be done under the UAM, the rate of taxation has to be as prevalent in the relevant year and not as prevalent under the UAM. It was held that while Section 116(G) was concerned with assessment of annual value, the rate of tax is to be determined under Section 114(D). I may notice that another Single Judge of this Court in Ritu Sengupta Vs. MCD 152(2008) DLT 68 has also followed the same view.

8. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not covered by the dicta aforesaid in Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain (supra) for the reason of this Court in W.P.(C) 5616/2006 filed by the petitioner having specifically directed that if the petitioner seeks assessment under the UAM, his said request would be so dealt with. He thus contends that the petitioner under the umbrella of the said order is liable for rate of tax also as under the UAM.

9. I am unable to accept the said contention of the counsel for the petitioner. The purport of the observation quoted above in the order dated 17.04.2006 in W.P.(C) No.5616/2006 earlier preferred by the petitioner was only to, not deprive the petitioner of the benefit of Section 116(G)(2) of the Act. The intent thereof was not to carve out a different law for the petitioner.

10. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.