9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Period of limitation for recovery of arrears of house tax due to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Analysis: The judgment deals with a second appeal challenging the period of limitation for the recovery of arrears of house tax due to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The appellant contested a demand notice for arrears of house tax, claiming exemption due to the property's history as an evacuee property. The appellant also argued that the demand was barred by limitation. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi defended the suit, asserting the legality of the demand and the absence of limitation on house tax recovery. The key issues revolved around the legality of the demand notice and the period of limitation for house tax recovery. The trial court found the demand notice barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, restraining the Corporation from recovering arrears prior to February 21, 1965. However, the Senior Sub-judge in the second appeal held that no specific limitation period applied to house tax recovery by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He relied on precedents such as Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Balkishan Das and Mittar Sain v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, asserting that house tax arrears could be recovered without limitation. The judgment analyzed the relevant legal provisions, emphasizing Section 123 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, making property taxes a first charge on the property. It discussed the applicability of Article 62 of the Limitation Act, which allows a 12-year period for enforcing payment charged upon immovable property. The appellant's argument for applying Article 113, prescribing a three-year limitation, was dismissed as the house tax was deemed a first charge on the property, aligning with precedents from Bombay and Allahabad High Courts. The judgment distinguished cases involving different taxes, such as advertisement tax, where a residuary article applied due to the absence of specific limitations. It concluded that Article 62 of the Limitation Act governed the demand in question, ensuring it was not barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the precedence set by earlier judgments and the property tax's status as a first charge on the property, thus upholding the Corporation's right to recover the arrears of house tax.
|
