9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to property tax assessments for specific years. Availability of statutory appeal as a remedy. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 despite statutory remedy. Analysis: The case involved a challenge to property tax assessments for certain years by the sons of a property owner. The appellants contested the rateable values determined by the New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) for specific years, arguing that the assessments were based on incorrect rental values. The appellants had let out the property to Indian Oil Corporation and M/s Chowgule & Company Limited, and they claimed that the house tax had been levied on actual rent amounts for certain years. However, discrepancies in rental amounts were noted in the assessment orders for subsequent years, which were not the subject of the appeal. The main legal issue revolved around the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal to the appellants. The counsel for NDMC contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of the appeal process, which required the appellants to deposit the house tax as a pre-condition for the appeal to be heard. On the other hand, the appellants argued that the statutory remedy was burdensome and should not preclude them from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In analyzing the maintainability of the writ petition, references were made to relevant legal precedents. The court distinguished the decision in Mafat Lal Industries Limited case, emphasizing that the availability of statutory remedies does not bar the constitutional powers of the court under Article 226. The court also highlighted the importance of judicial review provided by Article 226, which cannot be undermined by onerous statutory provisions requiring deposit of taxes as a pre-condition for appeal. The judgment discussed the principles established in previous cases, such as Himmat Lal Hari Lal Mehta and Srikant Kashinnath Jituri, which emphasized that a constitutional remedy cannot be barred by provisions in a statute regarding finality. The court reiterated that the constitutional remedy under Article 226 provides a distinct jurisdiction for judicial review, separate from the jurisdiction of civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the writ petition for fresh consideration, emphasizing the constitutional importance of Article 226 and the need to balance statutory remedies with constitutional rights. The parties were directed to appear before the learned Single Judge for further proceedings, with costs to be borne by each party individually.
|
