This Court allowed appeals by the MCD, holding that the rateable value fixed by the assessor with effect from 01.08.1999 was valid, overriding the Appellate Authority's decision based on counsel concession regarding the notice date.
The rateable value fixed at ₹32,45,750/- with effect from 01.08.1999 is held to be validly fixed. Appeals allowed to this extent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 07.04.2016
Through: Ms Amita Gupta, Adv.
versus
RAGHAV COLD STORAGE P.LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr B.B. Jain, Adv.
+ LPA 1731/2006
MCD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms Amita Gupta, Adv.
versus
RAGHAV COLD STORAGE P.LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr B.B. Jain, Adv.
+ LPA 1732/2006
MCD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms Amita Gupta, Adv.
versus
RAGHAV COLD STORAGE P.LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr B.B. Jain, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 1
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
67,11,600/- with effect from 01.04.1998. The existing rateable value was 26,10,040/- with effect from 15.10.1996 (to till the period the notice was issued, i.e., 08.03.1999). The notice, in short, proposed the revision with effect from 01.04.1998. It is not in dispute that the notice was received by the assessee within the assessment year 1998-99 in March, 1999; objections were filed on 24.03.1999. The assessor/officer deciding theLPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 2
objections finally determined the rateable value at the proposed rate of `32,45,750/- with effect from 01.08.1999.
32,45,750/- with effect from 01.08.1999 and at 11,94,840/- per annum with effect from 22.06.2001. The Assessee was granted vacancy remission from 22.06.2001-31.03.2003 vide assessment order dated 05.06.2003. Against this order, Assessee preferred to appeal before the appellate authority. MCD’s counsel, in the course of submissions before the Appellate Authority, stated that no notice of enhancement for the year 1999-2000 had been issued and that consequential rateable value could not have been assessed with effect from 01.08.1999 on the basis of the notices in this case, i.e., issued on 08.03.1999. The Appellate Authority, therefore, directed as follows:-“8. Ld. counsel for respondent has conceded to the first contention raised on behalf of appellant regarding assessing of the property done by the respondent w.e.f. 1.8.99. The respondent’s ld. counsel has very fairly conceded that since there was no notice of enhancement for the year 1999-2000, the rateable value could not have been assessed w.e.f. 1.8.99 on the basis of notice dated
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 3
8.3.99. Hence, it is directed that the rateable value of appellant’s property assessed by the respondent vide its order dated 14.03.2000 at ` 26,10,040/- shall continue till the property fell vacant.”
Against the above order, MCD approached this Court through W.P.(C) No. 17122/2004.
“2. Finding in para 8 of the decision impugned is on the basis of concession given by counsel for MCD. Directions issued in para 9 and 10 requires the Assessing Officer to determine on the issue of vacancy remission. No conclusive finding has been arrived at. Additional, a decision of this Court inter se the parties has been noted in para 10 of the impugned order. In respect of directions issued vide para 11, since Assessing Officer relied upon CPWD rates and assessee was urging to the contrary, direction issued is to obtain a report from an independent valuer under Section 135 of the DMC Act.”
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 4
follows:
“15. Indisputably, the Parliament did not intend to confer unbriddled power on the Commissioner to amend the assessment list. For that purpose only a period within which the jurisdiction is to be exercised was contemplated, namely, before the expiry of three years from the end of the year in which the notice is given, but the same would not mean that the restriction imposed should be given a restricted meaning so as to narrow down the scope thereof any further.
16. In interpreting a provision dealing with limitation, a liberal interpretation in a situation of this nature should be given. Although an order passed after expiry of the period of limitation fixed under the statute would be a nullity, the same would not mean that a principle of interpretation applied thereto should not be such so as to mean that not only an order is required to be made but the same is also required to be communicated.”
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 5
“55. What do we understand when it is said that the Commissioner may adopt the rateable values contained in the list for any year for the year following? This really refers to adopting the rateable values given in the previous year in respect of land or building. Once a notice under S. 126 proposing an increase has already been given in respect of the land or building by virtue of bye-law No.9, the assessment list in the year in which notice is given automatically gets amended and under S.127 it is that rateable value which is adopted for the following year. When the proceedings under S. 126(2) get finally determined, the assessment list gets amended with effect from the date as found in the assessment order and since the adoption of rateable value for any year was of the previous year in which the notice was given, as soon as, the assessment order for the previous year gets finalised, the demand is raised for the year in which the rateable value of the previous year was adopted for any year, on the basis of the finalisation of the assessment of the previous year.”
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 6
“21. What do we understand when it is said that the Commissioner may adopt the rateable values contained in the list for any year for the year following? This really refers to adopting the rateable values given in the previous year in respect of land or building. Once a notice under Section 126 proposing an increase has already been given in respect of the land or building by virtue of bye-law No. 9, the assessment list in the year in which notice is given automatically gets amended and under Section 127 it is that rateable value which is adopted for the following year. When the proceedings under Section 126(2) get finally determined, the assessment list gets amended with effect from the date as found in the assessment order and since the adoption of rateable value for any year was of the previous year in which the notice was given, as soon as, the assessment order for the previous year gets finalised, the demand is raised for the year in which the rateable value of the previous year was adopted for any year, on the basis of the finalisation of the assessment of the previous year.
22. While adopting the assessment list of any previous year for any year, it was not necessary that the assessment list for the previous year must have become final in the sense that the proceedings for increasing the rateable value in the previous year must also come to an end and failing which the rateable value for the previous year cannot be adopted for the following year. All that Section 127 contemplates is that for any year the rateable value contained in the list for the previous year may be adopted.
23. To summarise -
(a) An assessment list has to be prepared in respect of each land and building which is liable to tax which list contains all the particulars including the rateable value of the property. The procedure for preparing such an
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 7
assessment list is contained in Sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 124;
(b) Section 127 provides that every year the Commissioner should either prepare for the whole or any part of Delhi a new assessment list or “...adopt rateable values contained in the list for and year with such alterations as may in particular cases be deemed necessary....”
The procedure for exercise of either of these two options is by “giving the same public notice as well as individual notices to persons affected by such alterations to the rateable values as if a new list had been prepared...”;
(c) Section 126 confers power to “...amend the assessment list...” in respect of any property or person after the issuance of a prior notice therefor. After the amendment of the laws by Act 42 of 1961, the only limitation on the retroactivity of such an amendment is that it cannot relate to a period prior to the commencement of the year in which the notice to amend is given;
(d) The legal consequences of an assessment list, as per Section 125, is that it is conclusive evidence of the rateable value of lands and buildings for the purpose of assessing any tax. However, this is subject to “…any alteration that may be made thereafter in the assessment list under Section 126 and to the result of any appeal made under the provisions of this Act...;
(e) That once the Commissioner exercises the option to “adopt” the assessment list of a particular year for subsequent years then any amendment of the original assessment list (either by virtue of powers exercised by the Commissioner under Section 126 or as a consequence of any appeal) constitutes ipso jure an amendment of the assessment list for the subsequent
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 8
years also for which the original assessment list had been adopted and it is not necessary to once again follow the procedure of Section 126 for a consequential modification of the assessment lists for the subsequent years to bring them in accord with the amended/modified initial assessment list.
26. Mr. Yogesh K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant, tried to submit that this proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 156 indicates that the appellate court has the power to grant stay during the hearing of the appeal and that when the relief is finally granted, this proviso comes to the rescue. We do not agree with this view. The proviso deal with a case where assessments for one or more future years are made adopting the assessment or revision made for one year (which may be called the base year) which is under appeal. It ensures that demands for successive years cannot be enforced or recovered to the extent the appeal for the base year succeeds, even without the necessity for an appeal by the assessee for each of the successive years.”
“ 126. Amendment of assessment list
(1) The Commissioner may, at any time, amend the assessment list—
(a) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be inserted; or
(b) by inserting therein any land or building previously omitted; or
(c) by striking out the name of any person not liable for the payment of property taxes; or
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 9
(d) by increasing or reducing for adequate reasons the amount of any rateable value and of the assessment thereupon; or
(e) by making or cancelling any entry exempting any land or building from liability to any property tax; or
(f) by altering the assessment on the land or building which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, mistake or accident; or
(g) by inserting or altering any entry in respect of any building erected, re-erected, altered or added to, after the preparation of the assessment list:
Provided that no personal shall by reason of any such amendment become liable to pay any tax or increase of tax in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the year [in which the notice under sub-section (2) is given].
(2) Before making any amendment under sub-section (1) the Commissioner shall given to any person affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month that he proposes to make the amendment and consider any objections which may be made by such person.
(3) XXX XXX XXX
(4) No amendment under sub-section (1) shall be made in the assessment list in relation to—
(a) any year prior to the year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988 after the 31st day of March, 1991
(b) the year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any other year thereafter, after the expiry of three years from the end of the year in which the notice is given under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 10
apply to a case where the Commission has to amend the assessment list in consequence of or to give effect to any direction or order of any Court.
Explanation—In computing the period referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) any period or periods during which the proceedings for the assessment were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court, or the period of any delay attributable to the person to whom the notice has been given under subsection (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, shall be excluded.”
127. Preparation of new assessment list
It shall be in the discretion of the Commissioner to prepare for the whole or any part of Delhi a new assessment list every year or to adopt the rateable value *** contained in the list for any year, with such alternations as may in particular cases be deemed necessary, as the rateable values *** for the year following, giving the same public notice as well as individual notices, to persons affected by such alternations, of the rateable values *** as if a new assessment list had been prepared.”
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 11
from which notice is given under Section 126(4). Now, it is not in dispute that the rateable value for every property assessed to municipal tax is entered in the ‘assessment list’ maintained by assessor/corporation by virtue of Section 124. The preparation of this list is more specifically indicated in Section 124. In terms of Section 127, a property can be assessed afresh in respect of a particular part of the year (i.e. alternation under Section) provided notice is earlier given to the concerned party likely to be affected.
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 12
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 13
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 07, 2016
BG
LPA Nos. 1730-1732/2006
Page 14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rateable value fixed with effect from 01.08.1999 was validly fixed despite the notice of enhancement being issued on 08.03.1999.
Whether the Appellate Authority correctly held that the rateable value could not be assessed with effect from 01.08.1999 based on a notice issued on 08.03.1999.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors.Referred¶6
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 309 · Who else cites this
Lok Kalyan Samiti vs. Delhi MunicipalityExplained¶7
Lok Kalyan Samiti vs. Delhi Municipality AIR 1978 Delhi 189 · Who else cites this
Shyam Kishore & Ors. vs. MCD & Ors.Referred¶8
Shyam Kishore & Ors. vs. MCD & Ors. 48(1992) DLT 277 (SC) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
MCD
Raghav Cold Storage P. Ltd.
S. Ravindra Bhat
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court