Disposed

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Delhi HC4 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/88/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order disposed of a writ petition challenging property tax demands. The court held that the impugned tax order under Section 72 of the NDMC Act was appealable. While noting potential issues with delay, the court directed the petitioner to file an appeal with condonation of delay within 30 days instead of hearing the writ. In the interim, coercive steps were stayed for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file appeal with condonation of delay within 30 days; coercive recovery proceedings stayed for 30 days; Writ Petition and Connected Application disposed of.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs New Delhi… — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 88/2024

¶4

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Batra, Mr. Devishah Batra and Ms. Shailja Yadav, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma and Ms. Anitya Sharma, Adv.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶9

O R D E R % 04.01.2024

¶10

CM APPL.352/2024 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 88/2024 and CM APPL.353/2024 (Stay)

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved by a demand notice raised by the respondent based on notices under Section 72 of the New Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as „NDMC Act‟), stated to have been received by the petitioner on 29.03.2007 and 29.03.2013. The same are stated to have been duly responded to by the petitioner. However, it has been submitted that without appreciating the response of the petitioner, an order under Section 72 of the NDMC Act, 1994 came to be passed on 22.03.2018, stating as under:

¶15

“ NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PALIKA KENDRA: NEW DELHI (Property Tax Department)

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2024 at 15:18:22

¶17

A.O.No.T.I-(8)/1483J.D.(Tax)/2018

¶18

Dated 22.03.2018

¶19

Premises No.	:-	WORKSHOP, MODERN SERVICE STATION
		JANPATH, JANPATH, NEW DELHI
Name of the owner	:-	Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bijwasan
		Installation, Bijwasan, New Delhi
Existing R.V.	:-	_₹39,400/- _
PID No.	:-	5985

¶20

ORDER U/S – 72 OF NDMC ACT, 1994

¶21

Three notices dated: 31.03.2006, 31.03.2007 and 31.03.2007 were given to the then owner Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distribution of India Ltd., U/S-72 of the NDMC Act 1994 with the proposal to revise the existing rateable value from Rs. 39,400/- to ₹11,53,350/- w.e.f 01.04.2005 and to ₹76,29,100/- w.e.f 01.04.2006.

¶22

A communication has been received from Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Requesting to change the name and address of the company from Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distribution of India Ltd. To Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bijwasan Installation, Bijwasan, New Delhi, which has been done in the record.

¶23

However, the assessee has not filed any written objection against the proposed RV. Therefore, NDMC is left with no other option but to finalize the RV on the basis of information and documents available on record, as under :-

¶24

w.e.f. 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006

¶25

₹11,53,350/-

¶26

w.e.f. 01.04.2006

¶27

₹ 76,29,100/-

¶28

This order decides notice dated: 31.03.2006, 31.03.2007 and 31.03.2007 given u/s :- 72 of NDMC Act 1994 and RV of the property is finalized at ₹ 1,53,350/- w.e.f. 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 and ₹ 76,29,100/- w.e.f. 01.04.2006 onward.

¶29

Issue bill on revised RV

¶30

(A.N. GAUR) Jt. Director (Tax)/ Assessing Authority”

¶31

Subsequently, demand notices in respect of the property in question

¶32

¶33

came to be raised on the petitioner, the latest being dated 22.05.2023 raising a demand of Rs.38,593,723/-.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that various demand letters issued by the respondent in the aftermath of the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2018 were responded to by the petitioner. He further submits that the order dated 22.03.2018 and the various demand letters are ultra vires the NDMC Act, 1994 and also in contravention of the judgment of Division Bench of this court in “ Ved Marwah vs. New Delhi Municipal Council ” 2018 SCC OnLine 8096.

¶35

Issue notice.

¶36

Learned counsel, as aforesaid, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention to Sections 115, 116 and 117 of the NDMC Act, 1994 which clearly provides for an appeal against the order passed under Section 72 of the NDMC Act, 1994. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not controvert that the order dated 22.03.2018 is, in fact, an appealable order. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not avail the option of filing an appeal because officials of the respondent required/ advised the petitioner to submit a representation, which was duly submitted, and which has been under consideration of the respondent. However, no decision is stated to have been taken thereon.

¶38

Since the order impugned in the present petition is admittedly an appealable order, it would be apposite to relegate the petitioner to avail appellate remedy as contemplated under Section 115 of the NDMC Act, 1994.

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2024 at 15:18:22

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned. Attention is drawn to Section 117 of the NDMC Act, 1994 which specifically provides that an appeal may be admitted after expiration of the period prescribed under Section 116A, if the appellant satisfies the court that it had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. The petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay before the concerned appellate authority.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal together with an application for condonation of delay shall be filed within 30 days from today.

¶43

Granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutorily prescribed appellate remedy, the present petition stands disposed of. In the interregnum, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of 30 days.

¶44

The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶45

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶46

JANUARY 4, 2024/ cl

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2024 at 15:18:22

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Shashi Gupta and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Chopra Vs BSNL & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Sym Company Vs Pr. Commissioner, Customs (Import) and Ors.

Arun Garg Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 35 1 Delhi

Abc Rj Land 01 Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Vivek Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Om Narayan Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through Special Commissioner (Enforcement) Transport Department & Anr.

M/S Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs M/S Jsw Ispat Steel Ltd.

Captain Sudhanshu Bharadwaj Vs Air India Limited

P.N.M.Enterprises Vs B.S.E.S Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Ahamada Nawaj Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Abc Rj Land 01 Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.