Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another vs Mithan Lal

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.—Petitioner-Corporation has filed the present writ petition impugning the judgment dated 5.12.1978 of the learned Addl. District Judge setting aside the assessment orders dated 31.5.1978 for the years 1975-76 and1977-78in respect of property bearingNo.H-147, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.

LearnedAddl. District Judge has set aside the assessment for three reasons firstly the notice was issued u/s 126 oft the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to the said Act)and not u/s 124 of the said Act; secondly that sufficient reasons had not been given for enhancement of ratable value and thirdly no basis''s even given for the assessment of the property.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that on the issue of the absence of reasons, the matter is liable to be remanded back to the Competent Authority for decision in accordance with law after giving the reasons for the same. Learned counsel ,however, contends that in so far as the first aspect is concerned, Section 124 of the Act is in respect of the preparation and publishing of the assessment list while Section126 of the Act deals with the amendment of the assessment list. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Courtin Smt. Santosh Chandiok Vs. Municipal Corporation,1972 RLR Notes 98 where it was held that so faras assessment of a newly erected building is concerned there is no difference between the provisions of Sections 124 and 126 of the Act governing the issue of notice but the the real difference lies in the legal consequences flowing from it in as much as in a notice u/s 124 of the Act, the liability to pay tax arises with effect from the beginning of the following financial year, while in the case of a notice under Section126of the Act, the liability to pay the tax arises with effect from the beginning of the current year. Learned counsel further submits that in response to the notice dated 31.3.1976,theonlyobjection raised by the petitioner vide letter dated 4.5.1976 was that the ratable value was too high.

I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the nature of objection raised by respondent no.1 and the aforesaid positionof law, there was no infirmity in the notice sentbythepetitioner.However, inviewof the absenceofanyreasongivingthebasisofthe assessment, the matter in question was liable to be remanded back to the Competent Authority for passing assessment order in accordance with law after recording reasons.

In view of the aforesaid, impugned order dated 5.12.1978isset aside with the direction to the concerned Authority to pass an order afresh giving reasons for the assessment. In view of longer passage of time, it will be appropriate that order is passed after issuance of notice to the respondent no.1. Writ petitionis disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.