Partly allowed

Sh. Anand Swarup Gupta v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Delhi HC7 May 2018W.P.(C)/4328/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed the impugned Assessment Order and demand bill regarding property tax due to non-cooperation by the assessee. The High Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, reserving its opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The assessment order dated 28.11.2017 and demand bill dated 13.03.2018 were quashed and the matter remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Sh. Anand Swarup Gupta Vs New Delhi Municipal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 4328/2018 & C.M. Nos.16818/2018 & 16819/2018

¶4

SH. ANAND SWARUP GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Brij Bhushan Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Jai Sahai Endlaw, Adv., Mr.Jai Khanna, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through Ms.Malvika Trivedi, ASC with Mr.Arjun Malik, ASC & Ms.Sriparna Dutta, Adv. for NDMC.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 07.05.2018

¶10

Vide the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the Assessment Order dated 28^th November, 2017, passed by the Assessing Authority, Property Tax Department, NDMC and the consequential Demand raised vide Bill dated 13^th March, 2018.

¶11

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of the impugned assessment order was received by the petitioner along with the impugned demand bill dated 13^th March, 2018.

¶12

Ms.Malvika Trivedi, learned counsel who appears on advance notice for the respondent, submits that the impugned order itself makes it clear that the respondent was constrained to pass such an order because of the non-cooperation of the petitioner. She submits that the impugned order records that since the assessee had failed to provide correct rental information in respect of the entire premises,

¶13

the rateable value had been fixed on the basis of the rental information in respect of one tenant only provided by National Statistical Commission. She submits that the respondent has fairly given an opportunity to the petitioner to present its case before the respondent but the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. She, however, submits that in view of the various contentions raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as regards the manner in which the rateable value has been fixed, she would have no objection, if the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority, for passing a fresh order by taking into consideration all the submissions made by the petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, the order dated 28^th November, 2017 and the demand bill dated 13^th March, 2018 are, hereby, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority, to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶15

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the various contentions raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and it will be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Assessing Authority which will be considered by the Authority while passing the fresh Assessment order.

¶16

It is agreed that the notice communicating the date, time and venue for re-hearing would be communicated not only to the petitioner but also to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

Needless to say that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any fresh order passed by the respondent, he would be at liberty to take legal recourse as permissible under law.

¶18

The petition and pending applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶19

MAY 07, 2018/aa REKHA PALLI, J

Sh. Anand Swarup Gupta v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Anand Swarup Gupta v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruchir Mittal Vs Ministry of H.R.D. and Ors.

Ram Gopal Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Manmohan Sharma and Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation through Commissioner

Ram Singh Vs D.T.C

School Management Committee (Smc), Lady Irwin Sr. Secondary School Vs Director of Education , Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Vinkesh Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nand Kishor & Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

G4S Facility Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund COMMISSIONER-1

Sevti Devi Senior Seconday Vidya Mandir Vs Directorate of Education

Shiv Shankar Vs Ajit & Ors.

Rajiv Gandhi Gramin College Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Kalka Public School and Anr. Vs Honble L.G. of Delhi and Anr.

Mohd. Yamin Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Anr.

Association of Self Financing Institutions Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.