2015 (1) TMI 1164 - HC - Indian Laws

Claim of refund of additional amount charged by DDA - Additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) charges for institutional plots - clarificatory Notification dated 17.07.2012, whereby para 6(g) of the earlier Notifications dated 10.10.2008 and 23.12.2008 was modified to the extent that educational societies/healthcare and social welfare societies having income tax exemption were exempted from levy of additional FAR charges - Held that - Admittedly, the petitioner is registered as a Trust and enjoying a tax exemption under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, applying the doctrine of parity, the petitioner herein being similarly situated of the petitioners whose cases have been allowed by this Court, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. At the cost of repetition, it is again opined that the subsequent Notification dated 17.07.2012, which is clarificatory in nature, has retrospective effect in its operation.Accordingly, the respondent No.2/SDMC is directed to refund a sum of ₹ 13,17,32,564/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on delayed payment. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to additional FAR charges for institutional plots under DDA Notifications, refund of charges by SDMC, retrospective effect of clarificatory Notification dated 17.07.2012, applicability of past court decisions to current case.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Additional FAR Charges:
The petitioner, a Cancer Research Institute, challenged the levying of additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) charges by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for institutional plots, including hospital plots. The DDA imposed these charges based on specific notifications, exempting only certain institutions allotted land at a nominal rate. The issue was previously challenged in a batch of writ petitions, resulting in a clarificatory notification exempting educational and healthcare societies with income tax benefits from these charges.

2. Refund of Charges by SDMC:
During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) demanded a substantial sum from the petitioner as additional FAR charges. Despite a court order directing refunds in similar cases, the SDMC declined the petitioner's representation for a refund, citing the prospective nature of the notifications. The petitioner sought a refund based on the retrospective operation of the clarificatory notification dated 17.07.2012.

3. Retrospective Effect of Clarificatory Notification:
The petitioner contended that the clarificatory notification should have a retrospective effect, as upheld in previous court decisions. The High Court, citing past judgments, including one affirmed by the Supreme Court, acknowledged the retrospective nature of the notification. The court set aside the SDMC's order and directed the refund of the charged amount to the petitioner within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the doctrine of parity and the retrospective operation of the notification.

4. Applicability of Past Court Decisions:
The High Court considered previous judgments, including one challenged in the Supreme Court, which upheld the retrospective application of the clarificatory notification. The court emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to relief based on the principle of parity with similarly situated entities benefiting from past court decisions. The court's decision to quash the SDMC's order and order a refund underscored the legal significance of the retrospective operation of the clarificatory notification.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment favored the petitioner, recognizing the retrospective effect of the clarificatory notification and ordering the refund of charges by the SDMC. The decision highlighted the importance of legal principles, past court decisions, and the equitable treatment of entities in similar circumstances.