Vijay Narain Seth & ANR. v. New Delhi Municipal Council

$~21 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7389/2022 & CM APPL. 22613/2022 VIJAY NARAIN SETH & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Amardeep Singh, Mr. Zuhaib Mansoori, Advocates along with petitioners in person (M:9811111144) versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent Through:

Mr.

Ashish Tiwari, Mr.

Akshay Verma, ASC-NDMC, Mr.

Sahib Patel, Advocate (M: 9971382986)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 17.03.2025 1.

The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the demand of the property tax and recovery notices dated 28th January, 2021 and 04th March, 2021, issued by the New Delhi Municipal Council ("NDMC"). 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the demand and recovery notices issued by the NDMC are purportedly based on Unit Area Method/ NDMC (Determination of Annual Rent) Bye Laws 2009 ("2009 Bye Laws"), which has since been declared as ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3.

Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that the demand for property tax on the basis of Unit Area Method, as raised by NDMC, is not as per law. 4.

Per contra, learned counsel for NDMC draws the attention of this Court to the property tax paid by the petitioners, as per the table given in the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

reply, which is reproduced as under:

5.

By referring to the aforesaid table, learned counsel for NDMC submits that property tax being paid by the petitioners cannot be said to be deposited under the Rateable Value, since the said deposited amount, is not proper, even as per the Rateable Value.

6.

By referring to the aforesaid table, it is the case of the respondentNDMC that huge dues to the tune of ₹ 1,59,98,382/-, are due and payable by the petitioners till 31st March, 2022. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the demand for property tax, on the basis of Unit Area Method, is as per the judgment of the Supreme Court and is valid. 7.

However, the said statement is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have never paid any property tax under the Unit Area Method, and have only paid under the Rateable Value.

8.

Therefore, he submits that the Supreme Court judgment would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, for payment The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

under the Unit Area Method.

9.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already paid the property tax under the Rateable Value. He further draws the attention of this Court to the bill raised by the NDMC towards the property tax, which is reproduced as under:

10.

This Court notes that statutory appeal under Section 115 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994, is available as an alternate remedy to The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the petitioner for challenging the levy or assessment of any tax under the said tax.

11.

As the present petition has been pending before this Court, since the year 2022, petitioners are at liberty to file the record of this Court before the learned District Judge, before whom the appeal shall be filed, for the purposes of making his submissions before the said Authority. 12.

Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners are directed to file appeal, as per law. 13.

Let the needful be done by the petitioners within an outer limit of four weeks from today.

14.

This Court notes that vide order dated 12th May, 2022, this Court had noted the statement on behalf of the respondents as follows: "xxx xxx xxx

3. Mr. Akshay Verma, learned ASC for the respondent, accepts notice and has disputed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. He, however, seeks some time to take instructions and to file Reply. Learned ASC also fairly submits that no precipitate action would be taken against the present petitioners in pursuance of the recovery notices issued on 28.01.2021 and 04.03.2021 till the next date of hearing.

xxx xxx xxx"

15.

Accordingly, it is directed that the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the respondent-NDMC, shall continue during the pendency of the appeal before the learned District Judge.

16.

In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition, along with pending application, stands disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J MARCH 17, 2025/au The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.