9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the objections filed by the petitioner in response thereto have been annexed as Annx.P-7 and P-8 to the writ petition. In its objections the first and foremost plea taken by the petitioner was that the Corporation should disclose the basis for arriving at the figure of ₹ 15,17,52,000/- so that the petitioner could effectively reply to the notice. The petitioner said in its reply/objections that no information has been disclosed to us how the Corporation arrived at a figure of ₹ 15,17,52,000/- as the proposed rateable value w.e.f. 1st April 1993. Without knowing the basis of the determination of the said figure we are unable to give en effective reply or response in reply thereto . In a nutshell the petitioner wants to know what is the case of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which it is required to meet. It was further stated by the petitioner that in the absence of full information and details the notice in question was invalid, illegal and ultra virus. Besides this several objections were taken qua the proposed amount of the rateable value. 2. Although an objection was taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that in view of the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be substance in the averments contained in para 28 of the writ petition to the effect that the building had not been completely demolished by the effective date, i.e. 1st April 1993. 5. The notice under section 126 of the Act proposing to revise the rateable value of the property has been challenged on the ground that it is vague and therefore invalid. The notice merely gives the following ground for revision:- plot, after demolishing of the structure for development . 6. This does not disclose any basis on which the proposed figure of rateable value, i.e. 15,17,52,000/- had been arrived at. The petitioner submits that inspite of specific request made by it to the respondent to disclose the basis behind the proposal, nothing was revealed and the petitioner was thus handicapped in meeting the case set up against it by the Corporation. 7. The impugned assessment order dated 11th August 1997 was challenged on the ground that personal hearing regarding the objections filed by the petitioner was given to the petitioner's representative by one officer while the impugned assessment order was passed by another officer. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted on behalf of the petitioners that assuming though not admitting that the Corporation can assess the property under section 116(2) of the Act, the Corporation has to give effect to bye law 4 of the Determination of rateable Byelaws 1994. The said bye-law reads as under:- DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (RATEABLE VALUE BYE-LAWS, 1994 4. In order to fix the rateable value of any land under sub-section (2) of Section 116 of the Act, where the market value of such land, in the year of assessment, is more than the cost paid for the land, the 'estimated capital value of such land' shall be the market value of such land in the year of assessment. Rateable value under this item shall be determined from 1.4.98 where at least twenty five per cent of the permissible covered area is not constructed upto 31.3.98. Explanation.- The market value of land for the purposes of this bye-law shall be the land rates notified by the D.D.A./L. D.O. or any other agency controlling the prices of land for the locality or similarly situated nearby locality. 11. In view of the said bye-law the market value concept cannot be applied prior to 1st April 1998. To buttress this argument the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon by the petitioner the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that these are attracted only in cases where the land has been always vacant and not in cases of the present type where land has become vacant on account of a voluntary act of the assessee. On the question of the basis of arriving at the capital value of land as envisaged in section 116(2) of the Act the learned counsel justified the approach of the Corporation. It was submitted that the basis had been adopted from the material belonging to the petitioner itself, the Corporation had proceeded on the basis of the Brochure issued by the petitioner and its collaborators which was indicative of the market value of the land in question. 13. We have noted the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties regarding the merits/basis of the assessment of the property in suit for purposes of levy of property tax. We would like to refrain from expressing any final opinion on the issues raised keeping in view the scheme of the Act according to which the Assessor and Collector is the authority entrusted with the function of fixing rateable value of the properties within its jurisdiction. Admittedly it is a quasi ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that no person shall by reason of any such amendment become liable to pay any tax or increase of tax in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the year (in which the notice under sub-section (2) is given). (2) Before making an amendment under sub-section (2) the Commissioner shall give to any person affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month that he proposes to make the amendment and consider any objections which may be made by such person. 15. The present is a case of amendment of the assessment list by increasing the amount of rateable value. As per sub-section (2) before making an amendment the Commissioner is required to give the mandatory notice of not less than one month about the proposal to make the amendment and giving opportunity to the effected person to file objections against such a proposal. The notice has to be served within the year in which the amendment is proposed to be given effect to. In the present case it has already been noticed that the only reason for the proposed amendment given in the notice is plot, after demolishing of the structure for development . Besides this only the figure of the proposed rateable v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions for the disposal of such objections are to be a mere formality, and that the objections are intented to be automatically consigned to the waste paper basket in pursuance of a decision previously arrived at. The occupiers are entitled for the proper disposal of their objections to be informed of the formula on which it was proposed to base the new assessments both for the purpose of challenging its general validity and also its application in individual cases. 19. Again in New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Indian Bank Ltd., (1967) 69 PLR (D.S.) 381 a Division Bench of this Court while interpreting similar provision in the Punjab Municipal Act as applicable to Delhi held that:- The notice issued under section 67(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, the Municipal Committee is bound to inform the assessee the reasons for the suggested alteration of the assessment. That is a condition precedent for a valid notice. Where the notice issued is in a printed form it is the duty of the issuing officer to strike out the unnecessary words in the printed form. The power to alter the assessment is entirely that of the Municipal Committee. Before exercising that power, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poration must have arrived at the proposed figure of rateable value on some basis, it cannot be that the proposed figure mentioned in the notice has dawned on some officer of the Corporation from the blue. When the proposed figure has been worked out on some basis we see nothing secret or confidential in it so as not to make it available to the assessee. The proposal in the notice has serious repercussions so far as the assessee is concerned and that is why the assessee has been given a right to file objections against the proposal. Saying that the entire facts are available with the petitioner is no answer to the requirement of disclosing the basis of the proposed figure of rateable value. In order to ensure that the right is effectively exercised and that it is not rendered illusory, we are of the view that the Corporation must disclose the basis of arriving at the figure contained in the proposal specially when the assessee has asked for the same. Setting aside the notice on this ground will mean that the petitioner will get a complete tax holiday with effect from the date of the proposed revision in the rateable value till a fresh notice is given. We are mindful of the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion had represented against grant of licence to the respondent. They had made written representations in this behalf. Oral hearing was given to them by an officer of the Govt. Final order granting permission to respondent was passed long after by another officer. In these facts it was held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. In our view this case has no application in the facts of the present case. This was a case of purely administrative inquiry whereas the case we are dealing with is one requiring discharge of quasi judicial functions. The requirement of oral hearing to be given to the assessee is implicit in view of the statutory provisions. Section 124(5) which deals with objections to the assessment list clearly provides for an opportunity of hearing to the party affected. Section 126 which has been applied in the present case, as noticed earlier, contains a mandatory requirement of notice and also provides for an opportunity to the assessee to file objections to the proposal. It also enjoins on the Commissioner to consider the objections of the assessee in response to the notice under section 126. In fact the learned counsel for the respondent admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
