Delhi High Court
Harsh Vardhan Bansal vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation And … on 11 November, 2024
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
+ W.P.(C) 13465/2021, CM APPLs. 42465/2021, 12479/2024 &
12480/2024
HARSH VARDHAN BANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC,
GNCTD with Mr. Prakhar,
Adv.
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing
counsel for MCD with Mr.
Manoviraj Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 9658/2019, CM APPL. 39894/2019
RITA CHHAWCHHARIA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Ms.
Ritika Sharma and Ms. Sakshi
Singh, Advs
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
-2-
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms. Preeti Chauhan,
Advs. for SHO
Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, PC for
GNCTD with Mr. Prakhyat
Gargasya, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 9659/2019, CM APPL. 39897/2019
BAJAJ JEWELLS INDIA (P) LTD THROUGH ITS DIRCTOR
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Ms.
Ritika Sharma and Ms. Sakshi
Singh, Advs
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL OF DELHI THROUGH ITS
ASSTT. ASSESSOR & COLLECTOR ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms. Preeti Chauhan,
Advs. for SHO
Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, PC for
GNCTD with Mr. Prakhyat
Gargasya, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 13462/2021, CM APPL. 42456/2021
NARESH KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
-3-
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms. Preeti Chauhan,
Advs. for SHO
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing
counsel for MCD with Mr.
Manoviraj Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 13463/2021, CM APPL. 42459/2021
SAVITRI MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr.
Sahil Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms. Preeti Chauhan,
Advs. for SHO
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
-4-
Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC,
GNCTD with Mr. Prakhar,
Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 2394/2021, CM APPL. 6962/2021
RAKESH NANDA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arjun Nanda, Mr. Aman
Nandrajog and Mr. Harsh
Vardhan Sharma, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....
Respondent
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms. Preeti Chauhan,
Advs. for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 2790/2022, CM APPL. 8046/2022
NARESH MALHOTRA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
-5-
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms. Preeti Chauhan,
Advs. for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 2864/2022, CM APPL. 8279/2022
GULSHAN CHAWLA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms. Preeti Chauhan,
Advs. for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 2868/2022, CM APPL. 8294/2022
NEELAM JAIN ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
-6-
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms. Preeti Chauhan,
Advs. for SHO
Mr. Saroj Bidawal, SC
+ W.P.(C) 2869/2022, CM APPL. 8297/2022
HARISH CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, PC for
GNCTD with Mr. Prakhyat
Gargasya, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 2875/2022, CM APPL. 8313/2022
M S AGGARWAL PLAZA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
-7-
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR. ... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, PC for
GNCTD with Mr. Prakhyat
Gargasya, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 13912/2019, CM APPL. 55757/2019
SH. SUBHASH JAIN AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Counsel(appearance not given)
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr.Namrata Mukim SC for
MCD with Ms Rupali Gupta
Adv
+ W.P.(C) 624/2020, CM APPL. 1714/2020
M/S BASANT PROJECTS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Counsel(appearance not given)
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Ankur
Gupta and Mr. Vishwajeet
Tyagi, Advs. for DMRC
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
-8-
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, PC for
GNCTD with Mr. Prakhyat
Gargasya, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 6151/2020, CM APPL. 22056/2020
M/S AVG LOGISTICS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Ms.
Ritika Sharma and Ms. Sakshi
Singh, Advs
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Ankur
Gupta and Mr. Vishwajeet
Tyagi, Advs. for DMRC
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 6212/2020, CM APPL. 22251/2020
M/S AVG LOGISTICS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Ms.
Ritika Sharma and Ms. Sakshi
Singh, Advs
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
-9-
Through: Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Ankur
Gupta and Mr. Vishwajeet
Tyagi, Advs. for DMRC
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 7867/2020, CM APPL. 25804/2020
M/S AVG LOGISTICS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Ms.
Ritika Sharma and Ms. Sakshi
Singh, Advs
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Ankur
Gupta and Mr. Vishwajeet
Tyagi, Advs. for DMRC
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 7868/2020, CM APPL. 25808/2020
M/S AVG LOGISTICS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Ms.
Ritika Sharma and Ms. Sakshi
Singh, Advs
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 10 -
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Ankur
Gupta and Mr. Vishwajeet
Tyagi, Advs. for DMRC
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 7869/2020, CM APPL. 25812/2020
M/S AVG LOGISTICS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Ms.
Ritika Sharma and Ms. Sakshi
Singh, Advs
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Ankur
Gupta and Mr. Vishwajeet
Tyagi, Advs. for DMRC
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 7884/2020, CM APPL. 25845/2020
M/S AVG LOGISTICS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Ms.
Ritika Sharma and Ms. Sakshi
Singh, Advs
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 11 -
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Ankur
Gupta and Mr. Vishwajeet
Tyagi, Advs. for DMRC
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 6656/2021, CM APPL. 20960/2021
D C M LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Ms.
Ritika Sharma and Ms. Sakshi
Singh, Advs
Versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 13219/2021, CM APPL. 41725/2021, CM APPL.
3178/2022
ISHWAR CHAND MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 12 -
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing
counsel for MCD with Mr.
Manoviraj Singh, Advs.
Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, PC for
GNCTD with Mr. Prakhyat
Gargasya, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 13222/2021, CM APPL. 41730/2021, CM APPL.
3159/2022
RENU AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 13 -
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 13224/2021, CM APPL. 41735/2021, CM APPL.
3162/2022
BABITA MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 13225/2021, CM APPL. 41740/2021, CM APPL.
3064/2022
BABITA MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 14 -
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 13440/2021, CM APPL. 42362/2021, CM APPL.
3163/2022
ISHWER CHAND MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing
counsel for MCD with Mr.
Manoviraj Singh, Advs.
Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, PC for
GNCTD with Mr. Prakhyat
Gargasya, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 13464/2021, CM APPL. 42462/2021
MUKESH MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 15 -
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing
counsel for MCD with Mr.
Manoviraj Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 13468/2021, CM APPL. 42469/2021
SAVITRI MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 16 -
counsel for MCD with Mr.
Manoviraj Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 13470/2021, CM APPL. 42473/2021
MUKESH MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing
counsel for MCD with Mr.
Manoviraj Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 13490/2021, CM APPL. 42554/2021
NARESH KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 17 -
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing
counsel for MCD with Mr.
Manoviraj Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 1430/2022, CM APPL. 4167/2022
RAM SWAROOP JASWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 2865/2022, CM APPL. 8286/2022
NIRMAL JAIN AND ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 18 -
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Saroj Bidawal, SC
+ W.P.(C) 2867/2022, CM APPL. 8291/2022 - STAY
RAJNI CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 4169/2022, CM APPL. 12509/2022
SHREE LAKSHMI ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(REGD.) & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 19 -
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Mr. Saroj Bidawal, SC
+ W.P.(C) 4374/2022, CM APPL. 13035/2022
SHASHI KANT CHAWLA AND ORS. .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for
MCD with Ms. Devika Singh
Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 4051/2023, CM APPL. 15838/2023
VIKAS REALITY SERVICES LLP ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 20 -
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 4161/2023, CM APPL. 16129/2023 - STAY
VIKAS PROMOTERS PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 4175/2023, CM APPL. 16185/2023
VIPUL GARG AND ANR. ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 21 -
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
+ W.P.(C) 14835/2023, CM APPL. 59015/2023
M/S BASANT PROJECTS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Mr. Divesh
Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Gupta,
Mr. Akash Tiwari, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh and Mr. Sahil
Gupta, Advs.
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH
COMMISSIONER MCD CIVIC CENTRE & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Ankur
Gupta and Mr. Vishwajeet
Tyagi, Advs. for DMRC
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Standing
counsel for MCD with Ms.
Vasudha, Advs.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Mr. Agam
Rajput and Ms.Preeti Chauhan,
Advs.for SHO
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 22 -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Reserved on: 27.08.2024
Pronounced on: 11.11.2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The instant batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India essentially challenges the recommendations
made by the Municipal Valuation Committee-III (hereinafter referred
to as ‘MVC-III’) under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DMC Act’) which
are sought to be implemented to levy property tax by erstwhile East
Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘EDMC’).
EDMC was reunified alongwith other Corporations and is now called
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
‘Corporation’).
2. The majority of the writ petitions concern shops within a mall,
while some petitions pertain to entities located in metro station
complexes. Additionally, one of the writ petitions relate to a flatted
factory and two other s involve multiplexes.
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY
3. In the year 2004, the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment
Act), 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Amendment Act of 2003’)
came into force which, inter alia, brought about a change in the
property tax regime to the extent of replacing the then existing
‗Rateable Value (RV) system ‘with ‗Unit Area Method’ (UAM). Prior
to the introduction of amendment in the DMC Act, the properties were
taxed based on the annual rate at which such lands or buildings were
reasonably expected to be let out from year to year. However, post
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 23 –
enforcement of UAM based system, the property tax for a particular
property is calculated based on annual value of the property arrived at
by multiplying the Unit Area Value (hereinafter referred to as ‘UAV’)
assigned to the colonies/localities with the covered area of the
property and the multiple factors of occupancy, age, structure and use.
4. Under the provisions of DMC Act, Section 113 empowers the
MCD to levy, inter alia, property taxes. Section 113(3) stipulates that,
besides others, the property taxes are to be levied, assessed and
collected in accordance with the provisions of the DMC Act and the
bye-laws made, thereunder. The unamended Section 114 of the DMC
Act envisaged the property taxes to be levied on the lands and
buildings in Delhi and the same were calculated as a percentage of
―the Rateable Value‖ of the lands and buildings. The determination of
―the Rateable Value‖ of lands and buildings assessable to property
taxes was provided in the erstwhile Section 116 of the DMC Act. It
prescribed that ―the Rateable Value‖ of any land or building
assessable to property taxes shall be the annual rent at which such land
or building might reasonably be expected to let out from year to year.
However, the Amendment Act of 2003 introduced various alterations,
consequent upon a change in the method of computing the property
taxes to the unit area basis. By virtue of Section 2 of the Amendment
Act of 2003, the word “annual value” was substituted for the word
―Rateable Value‖. The newly introduced Section 2 (1A) defines
―Annual Value‖ to mean the annual value of any vacant land or
covered space of any building as determined under Section 116E of
the DMC Act. Section 114A stipulates that for any building, the
building tax shall be equal to the rate of building tax as may be
prescribed by the MCD under Section 114D multiplied by the annual
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 24 –
value of the covered space of the building determined under Section
116A (1) or Section 116F.
5. By newly inserted Section 116E (1), the annual value of any
covered space of a building in any ward is the amount arrived at, by
multiplying the total area of such covered space of the building to the
final base UAV of such covered space and the relevant factors as
referred to in Section 116A (2) (b) of the DMC Act. Essentially, the
annual value of a covered space in a building, under the new regime,
is to be calculated by employing the following formula:-
Annual Value (AV) = CA x UAV x AF x OF x UF x SF
wherein,
UAV = Unit Area Value
AF = Age factor
OF = Occupancy factor
UF = Use factor
SF = Structure factorThus, the valuation method has changed from being based on the
annual rent on which the land or building was reasonably expected to
be let out from year to year, to one based on UAV multiplied by the
covered area and other multiplicative factors mentioned, therein.
6. The authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Vinod Krishna Kaul v. Lt. Governor NCT of
Delhi1 upheld the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of
2003, bylaws and the provisions introduced, thereunder.
7. As per amended Section 116 of the DMC Act, the Government
shall, as soon as, may be after the commencement of the Amendment
Act of 2003, and thereafter, at the expiration of every third year,
constitute by way of a notification in the official Gazette, a Municipal
1
Signature Not Verified
2012 SCC OnLine Del 4355 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 25 –
Valuation Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘MVC’). As per
Section 116 (2) of the DMC Act, MVC shall consist of a Chairperson
and such other Members being not less than two and not more than six
as the Government may, from time to time determine. The functions
of MVC, as prescribed under Section 116(5), are extracted as follows:-
(a) To make recommendations to [the Corporation] on matters
relating to classification of vacant lands and buildings in any
ward of Delhi into colonies and groups of lands and buildings
and fixation of base value per unit area of vacant land or per
unit area of covered space of building and factors for increase
or decrease, or for no increase or decrease, thereof;
(b) To consider objections under section 116C, and to make
recommendation thereon; and
(c) To perform such other functions as the Government may
require.
8. Section 116A of the DMC Act provides for the classification of
vacant lands and buildings into colonies and groups and specification
of base unit area values, thereafter.
9. It is thus seen that post the Amendment Act of 2003, at the
expiration of every third year, the Government needs to constitute by
way of a notification an MVC to make recommendations as stipulated
under Section 116 (5) of the DMC Act. In the wake of the Amendment
Act of 2003, MVC-I was constituted on 28.10.2003, which submitted
its final report on 28.02.2004 and classified the territory of Delhi into
eight (8) categories i.e. Category „A‟ to Category „H‟. On 03.03.2004,
the Corporation accepted the report of MVC-I, and the unit area
method was implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2004. From the year 2004-05,
the entire Delhi has been subjected to the categorization of colonies
situated in different parts of the city i.e. from categories „A‟ to „H‟
based on numerous factors. During the years 2004-05 to 2006-07,
MVC-I recommendations remained in force. For the period between
2007-08 to 2009-10, MVC-II was constituted but no major changes
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 26 –
were implemented, and the position remained the same as it existed in
MVC-I regime.
10. Thereafter, on 08.09.2009, MVC-III was constituted for the
assessment of the property taxes for the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and
2012-13. On 25.06.2010, MVC-III submitted its interim report,
whereas, the final report came to be submitted on 28.04.2011. No
MVC was constituted for revision of base unit area value for the years
2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. However, on 27.07.2015, the
Corporation adopted MVC-III recommendations to be implemented
w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and to be continued till the constitution of further
MVC i.e., MVC-IV.
11. On 29.03.2016, respondent No.1 notified the implementation of
MVC-III, whereas, on 27.07.2016, the Corporation notified grant of
complete exemption from enhanced property tax to all the properties
on account of implementation of MVC-III report as empowered by
Section 117 of the DMC Act. The implementation of MVC-III is,
therefore, sought to be made effective for the financial years 2017-18,
2018-19, and 2019-20 depending upon the facts of each case.
12. Consequent to the implementation of the recommendations of
MVC-III, certain properties have been categorized as Super
Commercial Properties and the assessment orders came to be passed.
One of the assessment orders seeks to revise the property tax,
allegedly with retrospective effect i.e., from the year 2008-09
onwards, whereas, other cases are distinctly placed on facts which
shall be dealt with, accordingly. However, there is a sharp hike in the
property tax on account of the implementation of modified factors as
has been recommended in MVC-III. The alteration in the factors that
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 27 –
are accounted for levying the property tax can be understood from the
following table:-
S.No. Parameter As per MVC I As per MVC III
1. Unit area Value Rs.320/- sq. mt. Rs.630/- sq. mt.
2. Use Factor 4 6
3. Occupancy factor 2 1
4. Category D A
SUBMISSIONS
PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS
Shops in mall as super commercial propertiesCAUSE TITLE ENTITY NAME
Harsh Vardhan Bansal v. EDMC & Unit No. 27-28, GF Unity one
Anr. mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Shahadara, Delhi-32
W.P.(C)13465/2021
(Lead matter)
Savitri Mittal v. EDMC & Anr. Unit No. LG-2, GF Unity one
W.P.(C) 13463/2021 and mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Shahadara, Delhi-32
W.P.(C) 13468/2021Rakesh Nanda & Anr. v. EDMC Unit No. F-102, V3S mall, Plot
W.P.(C) 2394/2021 No. 10, Lakshmi Nagar,
District Centre, Delhi-92
Gulshan Chawla & Anr. v. EDMC & Unit No. S-201-202,Unity one
mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Anr.
Shahadara, Delhi-32
W.P.(C) 2864/2022
Renu Aggarwal v. EDMC & Anr. Unit No. GF Shop No. 7-10,
W.P.(C) 13222/2021 Unity one mall, Plot No. 29 &
31, CBD Shahadara, Delhi-32
Babita Mittal v. EDMC & Anr. Unit No. GF-23, Unity one
W.P.(C)13224/2021 and mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Shahadara, Delhi-32
W.P.(C) 13225/2021
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 28 –
Ram Swaroop Jaswal v. EDMC & Anr. Unit No. G-46A,B,C,D, GF
W.P.(C) 1430/2022 V3S Mall, Plot No.10
Rajni Chawla v. EDMC & Anr. Unit No. GF-12, Unity one
W.P.(C) 2867/2022 mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Shahadara, Delhi-32
Shashi Kant Chawla & Ors. v. EDMC Unit No. S-203,204,204 A, SF,
Unity one mall, Plot No. 29 &
& Anr.
31, CBD Shahadara, Delhi-32
W.P.(C) 4374/2022
Naresh Kumar Aggarwal v. EDMC & Unit No.GF-25, Unity one
mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Anr.
Shahadara, Delhi-32
W.P.(C) 13462/2021
W.P. (C) 13490/2021
Naresh Malhotra & Ors. v. EDMC & Unit No. GF- 30-32, Unity one
mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Anr.
Shahadara, Delhi-32
W.P.(C) 2790/2022
Neelam Jain v. EDMC & Anr. Unit No. F-117, Unity one
W.P.(C) 2868/2022 mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Shahadara, Delhi-32
Harish Chawla v. EDMC & Anr. Unit No. GF-26, Unity one
W.P.(C) 2869/2022 mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Shahadara, Delhi-32
MS Aggarwal Plaza Private Ltd. v. Unit No. GF-29, Unity one
mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
EDMC & Anr.
Shahadara, Delhi-32
W.P.(C) 2875/2022
Sh. Shubhash Jain & Anr. v. EDMC & G-1-C, Cross River Mall, Plot
No. 9B&9C, CBD, Shahadara,
Anr.
Delhi-32
W.P.(C) 13912/2019
Ishwar Chand Mittal v. EDMC & Anr. Unit No. GF-22, Unity one
W.P. (C) 13219/2021 mall, Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Shahadara, Delhi-32
Mukesh Mittal v. EDMC & Anr. Unit No. LG-1, Unity one mall,
W.P.(C) 13464/2021 and Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Shahadara, Delhi-32
W.P.(C) 13470/2021
Naresh Kumar Aggarwal EDMC & Unit No. LG-5, Unity one mall,
Plot No. 29 & 31, CBD
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 29 –
Anr. Shahadara, Delhi-32
W.P.(C) 13490/2021
Nirmal Jain & Anr. v. EDMC & Anr. Unit No. 205, 205A & 205B
W.P.(C) 2865/2022 Unity one mall, Plot No. 29 &
31, CBD Shahadara, Delhi-32
Shree Lakshmi RoadTransport Unit No. F-103, FF, V35 Mall,
Plot No.10 Lakshmi Nagar
Corporation (Regd.) & Anr. v. EDMC
District Centre, Delhi-92
& Anr.
W.P.(C) 4169/2022
Vikas Reality Services LLP v. MCD F-108, 109, 110
W.P.(C) 4051/2023
Vikas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. MCD F-101 & 102 Area 1040 Mtr &
W.P.(C) 4161/2023 Sq. G-14,15,21,22,29,32,34,35
& 40A Area 358.79 Sq. Mtr
Vipul Garg & Anr. v. MCD F-116, Vikas Cine Mall
W.P.(C) 4175/2023
13. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned senior counsel led the arguments on
behalf of the petitioners and made the following broad submissions:-
i. The categorization done by MVC-III is in violation of
Section 116 A of the DMC Act, in as much as, no power
was enumerated therein to create the category of Super
Commercial Properties and the same is without
jurisdiction as also impermissible in law.
ii. The subject properties have been wrongfully classified
from Category „D‟ to Category „A‟ for taxation purposes
as the colonies where subject properties are situated are
classified as Category „D‟ as per Delhi Circle Rates
notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi on
23.09.2014 (Circle Rates). Once the subject properties are
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 30 –
found to be situated in Category „D‟ colonies, the rates
applicable to Category „A‟ cannot be made applicable.
There have been no special facilities provided to the
Super Commercial Properties. The classification is, thus,
wholly illegal and improper.
iii. The categorization of the petitioners‟ properties into
Super Commercial Property is a result of self-
imagination of MVC-III without any cogent basis as there
does not exist any such concept of Super Commercial
Properties in law. The petitioners cannot be
discriminated against and placed in a higher category
merely based on the location of their shops in malls. Most
importantly, the respondents have failed to consider that
many shops in the city are situated at prime locations and
those shops are still subjected to tax at a lower rate.
Therefore, such superficial classification without any
sanction of law is in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and does not meet the essentials of
the principle of reasonable classification based on an
intelligible differentia.
iv. In addition, there does not seem to be any reasonably
sound basis for creating two distinct categories of shops
situated in the same mall, one covering less than 1500
square meters of area and the other covering an area more
than 1500 square meters. Additionally, no other
Corporation, except the erstwhile EDMC, has adopted the
recommendations of MVC-III, and even the EDMC itself,
retracted the implementation for one year to all the
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 31 –
properties subjected to higher taxation and, later on, the
exemptions were granted on a selective basis.
v. Reliance is also placed upon the decision in the case of
Vinod Krishna Kaul2 to substantiate the arguments.
vi. The assessment order w.e.f. 2008-09 is wholly without
jurisdiction and void ab initio as no assessment order can
be passed three years prior to the assessment notice given
the decision rendered by this Court in Ved Marwaha v.
NDMC3.
vii. In the subsequent recommendations of MVC-V, the
concept of Super Commercial Properties has been done
away with, and the taxation regime has been reverted to
the scheme outlined in MVC-I.
viii. Besides the aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel criticized
the improper action of the respondents as being
impermissible on account of the same being barred by
limitation.
Multiplexes as super commercial properties
CAUSE TITLE ENTITY NAME
Rita Chhawchharia & Ors. v. Plot No. 9-B & 9-C, CBD,
EDMC Karkardooma, Cross River Mall,
Shahdara, Delhi, 110032.
W.P.(C)9658/2019
Bajaj Jewels India (P) ltd. v. Plot No.10, V3S Mall, Laxmi
EDMC Nagar, District Centre, Delhi,
110092.
W.P.(C) 9659/2019
2
2012 SCC OnLine Del 4355
3
Signature Not Verified
2018 SCC OnLine Del 8096 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 32 –
14. Ms. Sonali Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners in W.P.(C) 9658/2019 and W.P.(C) 9659/2019 submitted
that the petitioners in these writ petitions are the first agitators of the
cause. She submitted that the petitioners are the multiplexes which are
different from the shops located in a mall. In addition, they are placed
at starkly different positions from the multiplexes located in the
Category „A‟ areas. She, therefore, contended that the petitioners
cannot be placed similarly with Category „A‟ colony facilities. She
further submitted that merely because the petitioners in these writ
petitions are operating as multiplexes, they cannot be categorized as
Super Commercial Properties.
Flattened factory as Super Commercial Properties – NDMC
CAUSE TITLE ENTITY NAME
DCM Ltd. v. North DMC Property No.7303-7661, Bara
Hindu Rao, Delhi, 110006.
W.P.(C)- 6656/2021
Area- 99350 sq. metre
15. There is only one writ petition, where the erstwhile NDMC is
arraigned as a respondent i.e., W.P.(C) 6656/2021, which relates to a
flatted factory i.e., an industrial building of more than one storey
which is sub-divided into small separated occupied units being used
for manufacturing, assembly and associated storage. The same has
also been categorized as a Super Commercial Property.
Entities at metro stations – concessionaire agreement with DMRC
CAUSE TITLE ENTITY NAME
AVG Logistics v. East DMC
W.P.(C) 6151/2020 1. Mansarovar Park Metro Station
PKG-1
W.P.(C) 6212/2020
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 33 –
W.P.(C) 7867/2020 2. Jhilmil PKG-1
W.P.(C) 7868/2020 3. Mansarovar Park Metro Station
W.P.(C)7869/2020 PKG-3
W.P.(C) 7884/2020 4. Jhilmil PKG-2
5. Mansarovar Park Metro Station
PKG-2
6. Mansarovar Park Metro Station
PKG-4
Basant Projects Private Ltd. v.
MCD & Anr.
W.P.(C) 14835/2023 1. Karkardooma Metro Station
W.P.(C) 624/2020 2. Dilshad Garden Metro Station
16. The writ petitions related to the entities situated at the metro
station complexes fall under the aegis of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as ‘DMRC’). The petitioners had a
concessionaire agreement with DMRC where land/shops at metro
stations were given to them for managing and marketing purposes.
While the agreement was in force, it appears that DMRC has made
certain payments of property taxes to the Corporation on behalf of the
petitioners. Later on, EDMC started raising demands directly from the
petitioners. The grievance in these writ petitions is also against the
categorization of those properties as Super Commercial Properties as
well as against the recovery effected by the DMRC for the payments
that it had made on their behalf to the EDMC. However, the DMRC
has justified the recovery based on the fact that the petitioners are
licensee(s) of the DMRC.
17. Mr. Deepak Vohra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in W.P. (C) 14835/2023 made an additional submission that
Signature Not Verifiedinitially there has been a payment of service charge which was
Signature Not the
Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 34 –
subject of contention but eventually, it has been converted into a
demand of the property tax.
18. Mr. Arjun Nanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 2394/2021 submitted that the petitioner
shop/unit covers an area of 132 square meters, whereas, the properties
which cover an area of more than 139.2 square meters are only placed
in the „Super Commercial Properties’ categories.
RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS
19. The aforesaid submissions have been strongly opposed by Ms.
Sunieita Ojha, learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the
Corporation and submitted as under:-
i. While explaining the scheme of Chapter VIII of the DMC
Act, which relates to the levy of taxes, she submitted that
the writ petitions are not maintainable at the instance of
the present petitioners as the recommendations were made
after following the due procedure of law laid down in the
DMC Act, wherein, publication of an interim report was
followed by invitation of objections in terms of Section
116 C of the DMC Act. There were 131 objections
received by the respondents which were discussed and
additions and omissions were carried out therein, by a
Screening Committee comprising of competent and
experienced officials before publishing the final MVC-III
report. However, it is pertinent to note that none of the
petitioners ever raised any objections when the due
opportunity was provided to them.
ii. The implementation of the recommendations of MVC-III
by the erstwhile EDMC cannot be the sole ground to
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 35 –
attribute any illegality to the recommendations made by
MVC-III after carrying out the statutorily required
procedure. Section 116 B (2) of the DMC Act makes it
binding upon the MCD to follow the recommendations
made by MVCs constituted under the DMC Act.
iii. The constitution of MVC and the provisions introduced
by the Amendment Act of 2003 and the bylaws therein,
have already been upheld in the case of Vinod Krishna
Kaul4 and unless the petitioners prove any fundamental
jurisdictional error, no interference is called for.
iv. The exemption granted by the erstwhile EDMC for any
particular year to the specific category of cases cannot
ipso facto be a reason to prevent the petitioners from the
payment of their respective property taxes. The provisions
of Section 116 A of the DMC Act have been strictly
adhered to, which includes the power lying with MVC to
consider any such parameters as may be relevant. The
categorization of vacant lands and buildings in any ward
of Delhi into groups of lands and buildings is permissible
and if the MVC has considered the properties situated
distinctly, which form a separate class in itself, no fault
can be found in such classification.
v. The decision relied upon by the petitioners in the case of
Ved Marwaha is distinguishable as the said case does not
deal with the taxation imposed on self-assessment basis.
While drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions
of Section 123D of the DMC Act, she emphasised that it
4
Signature Not Verified
2018 SCC OnLine Del 8096 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 36 –
was the petitioners‟ bounden duty to pay the property tax
on self-assessment basis which they failed to perform and
therefore, on account of their wilful suppression of
information, the Corporation is empowered to reopen the
assessment.
vi. She has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the
case of Vinod Krishna Kaul and the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Aurobindo Education Society5, Union of India
(UOI) and Ors. v. Cosmo Films Limited6, Union of India
and Ors. v. Exide Industries Ltd. and Ors.7, Spencer’s
Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. State of West Bengal8 and
Ganga Sagar Corporation v State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors.9
vii. With respect to the properties on lease under DMRC, she
submitted that the DMRC is a company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and therefore, it is liable
to pay the property tax on its properties being in
jurisdiction of the Corporation. According to her, under
Section 119 of the DMC Act, the properties of Union are
exempted from payment of property tax specified in
Section 114. The explanation to the said Section clarifies
that the property owned by the Government or a Statutory
Corporation which has a Corporate Personality of its own
shall not be deemed to be a property of the Union. DMRC
5
CA No. 149/2013
6
(2023) 9 SCC 244
7
(2020) 5 SCC 274
8
1991 (2) SCC 154
9
Signature Not Verified
1980 (1) SCC 223 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 37 –
operates independently from Indian Railways and is
primarily governed by the provisions of the Delhi Metro
Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002 and the
Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978,
rather than the Railways Act, 1989. She, therefore,
submitted that DMRC does not fall under the definition of
‘railway administration’ as per the Railways Act, 1989.
20. Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, learned Standing Counsel who appeared
for the Corporation in some of the writ petitions, in addition to the
aforesaid submissions, has highlighted the following aspects:-
i. Under Section 116A of the DMC Act, the words used are
‘colonies’ and ‘groups of land and buildings’. The
conjunction word ‘and’ between them is to be read
disjunctively which would permit different classification
of the group of buildings or colonies situated in a
particular category. If the malls of the entire Delhi are
taken as a group, then the umbrella clause i.e., Section
116 A of the Act would empower MVC to classify them
all into groups of buildings irrespective of their location in
Delhi.
ii. If a particular colony is categorised as „A‟, it does not
mean that all buildings/entities situated in that particular
colony necessarily be categorised as „A‟. If a nature of
building falling within a particular colony corresponding
to a particular category forms a different ground
altogether, they can be categorised separately and all
similarly situated buildings can be placed in one group
irrespective of them being spread over in multiple
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 38 –
categorised colonies. Section 116(1) of the DMC Act
empowers MVC to create an alternate mode of
classification which can altogether be a separate class. As
long as the classification is conforming to the provisions
of DMC Act, it cannot be called in question that it is a
sub-classification and violates the essential principle of
reasonable classification.
iii. A reading of the recommendations of MVC-III would
show that one of the factors based on which a separate
class of Super Commercial Properties has been created is
„proximity to commercial centres‟ and no other entity can
be as proximate as the entities situated inside a
commercial centre are.
iv. A separate class of Super Commercial Properties is
reasonable and is based on sound appreciation of ground
realities.
v. The jurisprudence of tax laws supports the findings of
MVC-III as the same is based on economic wisdom of the
Corporation in order to promote social justice. So long as
the power exercised by MVC-III is shown to be without
jurisdiction or apparently illegal and improper, the same
should ideally be free from the domain of judicial review.
vi. He has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of S
Kodar v. State of Kerela10,Sadiq Bakery v. State of
Andhra Pradesh11, Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.
10
(1974) 4 SCC 422
11
Signature Not Verified
AIR 1988 SC 322 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 39 –
State of Bihar and Ors12and Union of India v. Nitdip
Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.13
21. Mr.Tarun Johri, learned counsel who appears for DMRC has
placed on record written submissions and according to him, demand of
payment of property tax on DMRC’s property is in violation of Section
184 of the Railways Act, 1989. In any case, he submitted that as to
whether the DMRC is liable to pay the property tax is the issue which
is already sub judice in a separate writ petition. He, therefore,
contended that in the present set of cases, if at all, the property tax is
liable to be paid, the same will have to be paid by the lessee i.e., the
petitioners in the instant cases.
22. In rejoinder submissions, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned Senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that though
the petitioners did not raise any objection in terms of Section 116C of
the DMC Act, yet the petitioners are entitled to challenge the
recommendations of MVC-III as the same dehors the legal provisions.
According to him, the respondents are unable to show as to how the
criteria laid down under Section 116 A of the DMC Act had been
adhered to which includes various factors such assettlement pattern,
plotted housing, group housing, colony, availability of civic and social
infrastructure, access to roads etc.
23. It was his contention that MVCs are to be constituted every
three years; however, MVC-III being constituted in the year 2010,
submitted its interim report on 25.06.2010 and ultimately,the final
report was submitted on 29.03.2016. According to him, the interim
report and the final report have no co-relation with the economic
conditions and developments prevailing at the relevant point of time.
12
(1983) 4 SCC 45
13
Signature Not Verified
(2012) 1 SCC 226 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 40 –
He, therefore, submitted that the recommendations made in the year
2016 cannot be made applicable in the contemporary times. He
criticized the reasoning behind categorisation of Super Commercial
Properties on the ground that if the petitioners have higher capacity to
pay, the same does not imply that as a sequitur, they shall be subjected
to payment of higher taxes. Such a presumption, according to him, is
based on untenable figures.
24. Ms.Sonali Malhotra, learned counsel, in her rejoinder
submissions, contradicted the submissions made by the respondents.
She drew strength from the decision of this Court in the case of Vinod
Krishna Kaul to assert that the same would support the petitioners‟
case. She also submitted that there are no special amenities provided
by the respondents with respect to the properties which are categorised
as Super Commercial Properties and therefore, the writ petitions
deserve to be allowed.
25. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for
the parties and perused the record.
ISSUES
26. On the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the following issues emerge for
consideration:-
I. Whether the categorization of the properties of the
petitioners as Super Commercial Properties by the MVC-
III constitutes reasonable classification under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India?
II. Whether the Corporation is justified in re-opening the
property tax assessment for the previous years?
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV - 41 - ANALYSIS
27. Before adjudicating the aforesaid issues, it is expedient to
examine the brief background of the municipal functions envisaged to
be performed in the NCT of Delhi. Initially, the Municipal
Government of Delhi was being administered as per the provisions of
the Punjab District Boards Act, 1883 and the Punjab Municipal Act,
1911 through various bodies and local authorities, wherein, the
territory of Delhi was allocated under different organs, such as,
Municipal Committee, Delhi; the notified area Committee, Civil
Stations; the notified area committee, Red Fort; the Municipal
Committee, Delhi, Shahdara; the Municipal Committee, West Delhi;
the municipal committee, South Delhi etc. The multiplicity of local
authorities overlooking the municipal affairs gave rise to various
complications and created difficulties for the authorities as well as for
the public at large and hence, it was necessitated to have an uniform
administration of such municipal functions. Accordingly, in order to
consolidate and amend the laws relating to Municipal Government of
Delhi, the DMC Act was enacted by the Parliament, wherein, Section
3 provides that the Government [Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi], is empowered, by notification in the official
Gazette, to establish for the purposes of the DMC Act, Corporation or
Corporations charged with the Municipal Government of Delhi. Every
Corporation so established, shall be a body corporate with the name
duly notified by the Government having perpetual succession and a
common seal with power, subject to the provisions of the Act, to
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 42 –
acquire, hold and dispose of property and may by the said name sue
and be sued.
28. The DMC Act encapsulates various provisions which are
classified under different chapters, such as establishment of
Corporation, functions of the Corporation, municipal authorities under
the Corporation, municipal officers and other municipal employees,
revenue and expenditure, property and contract, and accounts and
audit etc., whereas, Chapter VIII specifically deals with the taxation
regime. As has been noted hereinabove, the Corporation is empowered
to impose various taxes under Section 113 of the DMC Act, including
the property tax. The components of property tax as per Section 114 of
the DMC Act include building tax and vacant land tax. Section 114A
deals with the building tax which provides that for any building, the
building tax shall be equal to the rate of building tax as may be
prescribed by a Corporation under Section 114D multiplied by the
annual value of covered space of the building determined under
Section 116E (1) of the DMC Act. However, the vacant land tax shall
be leviable as per Section 114C in respect of any premises which shall
be equal to the rate of vacant land tax as may be specified by the
Corporation under Section 114E multiplied by the annual value of the
vacant land determined under of Section 116E (3). Section 114D of
the Act prescribes the base rate of property tax on building in Delhi to
be between a minimum of 6% and maximum of 20% of the annual
value of such buildings as may be specified by the Corporation from
time to time. It further provides that the Corporation may, at any time,
prescribe fixed rates between the minimum and maximum rates of tax
for different colonies or for different groups of buildings in such
colonies.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV - 43 -
29. Section 115A, inter alia, stipulates that every building and
every vacant land shall be assessed as a single unit. Section 116
empowers the Government to constitute by notification, in the official
Gazette, an MVC, consisting of a Chairperson and such other
members, being not less than two and not more than six as the
Government may determine. The functions of MVC have already been
discussed in preceding paragraphs which essentially relate to making
recommendations to the Corporation on matters relating to
classification of vacant lands and buildings in any ward of Delhi into
colonies and groups of lands and buildings and fixation of base value
per unit area of vacant land or per unit area of covered space of
building and factors for increase and decrease or for no increase and
decrease, thereof.
Issue (i)
30. The MVC, before recommending the classification of the vacant
land and buildings in any ward of Delhi referred to in Section 116(5)
(a) of the DMC Act, into colonies and groups of lands and buildings,
takes into consideration various parameters. Section 116A thus
becomes imperative to be considered, which is reproduced hereunder
for the sake of clarity as:-
―[116A. Classification of vacant lands and buildings into colonies
and groups and specification of base unit area values therefore.–
(1) The Municipal Valuation Committee shall recommend the
classification of the vacant lands and buildings in any ward of
Delhi, referred to in section 5, into colonies and groups of lands
and buildings after taking into account the following parameters:–
(a) settlement pattern such as plotted housing, group housing,
colony with flats only, urban village, unauthorized colony,
resettlement colony, rural village and non-residential areas;
(b) availability of civic and social infrastructure;
(c) access to roads;
(d) access to district centres, local shopping centres, convenience
shopping centres, and other markets;
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 44 –
(e) land prices as may, from time to time, be notified by 5 [the 6
[Government]] or the Delhi Development Authority;
(f) use-wise category of any building including residential building,
business building, mercantile building, building for recreation and
sports purposes, industrial building, hazardous building and public
purpose building including educational, medical and such other
institutional building and farmhouse, as may be specified by 2 [ 3
[the Corporation]];
(g) in the case of buildings used for business, mercantile, recreation
and sports, industrial, hazardous, storage or farmhouse purposes,
the location of such buildings adjacent to such categories of streets,
as may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be specified by
2 [ 3 [the Corporation]];
(h) the types of buildings which may be classified as pucca, semi-
pucca or katcha, as may be specified by 1 [ 2 [the Corporation]];
(i) the age-wise grouping of buildings as may be specified by 1 [ 2
[the Corporation]]; and
(j) such other parameters as may be considered relevant by the
Municipal Valuation Committee.
(2) The Municipal Valuation Committee shall recommend, group
wise,–
(a) the base unit area value of any owner-occupied vacant land, or
any wholly owner-occupied building of pucca structure, constructed
in the year 2000 or thereafter, and put to exclusive residential use,
and
(b) the factor for increasing or decreasing, or for not increasing or
decreasing, the base unit area values specified in clause (a),
separately in respect of each of the parameters of type of colony,
use, age, type of structure and occupancy status of the vacant land
or building, as the case may be, subject to a lower limit of zero
point five and upper limit of ten point zero.‖
31. Section 116B requires the classification of vacant lands and
buildings into colonies and groups, specifications of base unit area
value thereof, and factors for increase or decrease to be notified by the
Corporation. Section 116C requires MVC to consider any objections
in respect of public notice issued under Section 116B of the DMC Act.
Section 116D envisages that subject to the provisions of Section 169,
the base unit area value of vacant land and base unit area value of
covered space of building in any group, as may be specified under
Section 116C (3), shall be final. The same is to be published and
Signature Not Verifiedcopies, thereof, shall also be made available to any person on cost
Signature Notetc.
Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 45 -
Section 116E prescribes determination of annual value of covered
space of building and of vacant land which essentially is based on base
unit area value. Section 116 E reads as under:-
―116E. determination of annual value of covered space of building
and of vacant land.–(1) the annual value of any covered space of
building in any ward shall be the amount arrived at by multiplying
the total area bf such covered space of building by the final base
unit area value of such covered space and the relevant factors as
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 116 a.
explanation.– “covered space”, in relation to a building, shall
mean the total floor area in all the floor thereof, including the
thickness of walls, and shall include the spaces of covered verandah
and courtyard, gangway, garage, common service area, staircase,
and balcony including any area projected beyond the plot boundary
and such other space as may be prescribed.
(2) 1 [ 2 [the corporation]] may require the total area of the
covered space of building as aforesaid to be certified by an
architect registered under the architects act, 1972 (20 of 1972), or
any licensed architect,116a. classification of vacant lands and
buildings into colonies and groups and specification of base unit
area values therefor subject to such conditions as may be
prescribed.
(3) the annual value of any vacant land in any ward shall be the
amount arrived at by multiplying the total area of such vacant land
by the final base unit area value of such land and the relevant
factors as referred to in clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 116a.
(4) if, in the case of any vacant land or covered space of building,
any portion thereof is subject to different final base unit area values
or is not self-occupied, the annual value of each such portion shall
be computed separately, and the sum of such annual values shall be
the annual value for such vacant land or covered space of building,
as the case may be.‖
32. Section 120 elucidates that the incidence of property tax and the
liability of property tax on any land or building shall primarily be
upon the owner, thereof. Section 122 prescribes recovery of property
tax from occupiers, whereas, Section 123 prescribes a first charge of
property tax on premises on which they are assessed. Section 123A
further prescribes for the submission of returns. Section 123B
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 46 –
prescribes for self-assessments and submission of return and Section
123C thereby, provides for the revision of assessment.
33. Section 123D envisages the powers of Commissioner regarding
assessment which provides that the Commissioner may, at any time,
(i) make suo moto assessment in any case where a return on the basis
of self-assessment has not been filed, (ii) revise any assessment where
the information furnished in the return of self-assessment is found to
be incorrect (iii) reopen any assessment even after the period of one
year in any case where it has been detected that there is wilful
suppression of information and (iv) to impose a penalty not exceeding
30% of the difference in tax arising from wrong filing of a return in
time giving wrong information or wilful suppression of facts.
34. The final report of MVC consists of various factors, however, in
the instant cases, the Court is concerned about the categorisation of the
petitioners‟ entities as Super Commercial Properties. Clause 4.4 of the
final report furnished by MVC-III notes that the big commercial
properties like starred hotels, malls, multiplexes, guest houses, petrol
pumps, CNG Stations, farmhouses in non-residential use and big show
rooms in well-established notified commercial markets are a class by
themselves and have no similarity with small commercial properties
like small shops. Such big commercial properties, according to MVC-
III, have received huge reduction in property tax payable on
switchover to UAM and deserve to contribute more to the property tax
revenue on account of higher burden on municipal services as well as
on account of much higher capacity to pay. The MVC-III, therefore,
recommended that big commercial properties like starred hotels,
malls, guest house, petrol pumps, farm houses, used for non-
residential purposes and big show rooms above 1500 square feet
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 47 –
covered area which are mostly in recognised/DDA approved markets
should be treated as a separate class by themselves and be classified as
Category „A‟ properties. Paragraph no.4.4 of the final
recommendations is reproduced as under:-
―4.4 SUPER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
It has been noted by the Committee that big commercial properties
like Starred hotels, Malls; Multiplexes, Guest Houses, Petrol
Vumps, CNG Stations, Farm Houses in non-residential use and big
show rooms in well established notified commercial market are a
class by themselves and have no similarity with other ·small
commercial properties like small shops. Such big commercial
properties have received too much reduction in Property Tax
payable on switch over to U.A.M. and deserve to contribute more to
the Property Tax revenues on account of higher burden on
Municipal Services as wel1 as on account of much· higher capacity
to pay. However, public utility commercial properties like Banks
and Post-offices are not similar·. to those big commercial properties
and can reasonably be equated with the normal commercial
properties in a particular locality so as to attract the same unit area
values or factor values. The Committee, therefore, agrees with the
presentation made on behalf of the Commissioner, M.C.D. that the
big commercial properties like Starred hotels, Malls, Multiplexes,
Guest Houses, Petrol Pumps, Farm Houses used for no ideal
purposes and big show rooms above 1500 sq. ft. covered area which
are mostly in recognized/DDA approved markets should be treated
as a separate class by themselves. It is agreed that all Hotels-five
star and above, Multiplexes, Petrol Pumps, Farm Houses in non-
residential use, Guest Houses, Malls and all commercial properties
measuring 1500 sq. ft. or more be treated as category ‗A’ properties
and 3 & 4 Star Hotels treated as category ‘B’ if the colony is
categorized below ‘B’, regardless of the category of the colonies in
which they incidentally fall.
Also the Super Commercial Properties, except Hotels – 5 star &
above (which would continue to attract a factor of 10), should
attract factor of 6 instead of 4. This criterion of 1500 Sq. ft. and
above will cover all big commercial properties which will be mostly
in established DDA approved markets.
Moreover, these big special commercial properties are different
from small shops, etc. and have got too steep a reduction in taxes
are the time of switchover to UAM. These should be taxed by
applying a factor of 6 – against 4 at present.‖
35. It is thus seen that on account of classifying the petitioners in
Signature Not VerifiedCategory „A‟, various parameters were altered from MVC-I to MVC-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 48 –
III. This categorisation, essentially from category „D‟ to category „A‟,
resulted in automatic hike in the payment of property taxes on the part
of the petitioners. However, further scrutiny of the recommendations
of MVC-III in paragraph no.3.22 of its final report would exhibit that
it has taken into consideration various aspects such as: (i) capital value
of land, (ii) prevalent rental value, (iii) age of colony, (iv) road on
which the colony is located, (v) infrastructure (physical), (vi) social
infrastructure, (vii) levy of services, (viii) type of colony (ix)
proximity to commercial centres, (x) location of colony, (xi) metro
lines and stations etc. for the purpose of categorisation.
36. While categorising the shops situated in a mall as Super
Commercial Properties, MVC-II was conscious of the aforenoted
parameters. In Paragraph no.3.22 (viii & ix), following pertinent
observations have been made by MVC-III:-
viii) Proximity to Commercial Centers:
Committee while maintaining the existing system of categorization
of · colonies on the basis of proximity to commercial centres, the
committee came to them conclusion that all big commercial
properties like malls/multiplexes, five star .and above Hotels, Guest
Houses, Farm Houses in non-residential use and commercial show
rooms with covered area of 1500· Sq. ft. and above be categorized
as ‗A’, while all 3 & 4 Star Hotels be categorized as ‘B’, if otherwise
categorized below that.
ix) Location of colonies:
The Committee found no need for any change in the existing
grading done by MVC-1 under this parameter except that all
colonies developed by DDA in East Delhi which have a distinct and
separate character as compared to other colonies in East Delhi
need to be categorized one above their present categorization.
Therefore, the committee agrees with the proposal made in the
presentation ofthe MCD that all DDA developed colonies in East
Delhi be categorized on par with other DDA developed colonies in
East/North Delhi and categorization thereof shall one category
above from the existing categorization. Their list alongwith old and
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 49 –
new categorisation. Their list alongwith old and new categorization
is given in Annexure X.
37. The aforesaid recommendations came to be implemented under
Section 116 of the DMC Act vide notification dated 29.03.2016
which, inter alia, states that in view of the resolution dated
27.07.2015, MVC-III report has been adopted which would be
implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The notification dated 29.03.2016
reads as under:-
―Sub: Implementation of MVC-III Report U /S 116 of Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
Under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957
amended from time to time and under the power vested with
Municipal Valuation Committee U/S 116 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957, reported to erstwhile Delhi Municipal
Corporation the IIIrdMVC Report has been adopted by East Delhi
Municipal Corporation vide Resolution No. 76 dated 27.07.2015,
which will be implemented w.e.f 01.04.2016 onwards till further
constitution MVC. The comprehensive details of adoption of MVC-
III report is available at website www.mcdonline.gov.in and the
office of Assessment & Collection Department of East Delhi
municipal Corporation.‖
38. As has been noted in the preceding paragraphs, a complete
exemption from imposition of higher taxes under MVC-III
recommendations was granted for the year 2016-17 and therefore,
while extending the exemption to acertain set of properties, the
recommendations have been fully made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2017.
39. In the case of Vinod Krishan Kaul14, one of the arguments
advanced by the petitioners was that by virtue of Section 116A of the
DMC Act, MVC has been given unanalysed and arbitrary power in
recommending the classification of vacant lands and buildings in any
ward of Delhi into colonies and groups of lands and buildings. It was
argued therein that certain provisions, particularly Section 116A(1)(j)14
Signature Not Verified
2018 SCC OnLine Del 8096 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 50 –
empowered MVC to take into account ominous parameters which
were not even spelled out in the DMC Act or were not even in the
contemplation of the legislature, while making its recommendations
regarding classification of vacant lands and buildings into colonies
and groups of land and buildings. While dealing with the aforesaid
argument, the Court placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Anant Mill Company Ltd. v. State of Gujarat15
and in paragraph no.49 of the said decision held that firstly,
categorisation of colonies/area/localities in Delhi into different
categories is to be carried out keeping in mind firstly, the parameters
as specified in Clauses (a) to (j) of Section 116A(1) and secondly, for
arriving at the base unit area values and the multiplicative factor, clear
guidelines have been prescribed and therefore, the provisions of
Section 116A and other related provisionscannot be regarded as
arbitrary or contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In
paragraph No.41 to 49 of the decision in Vinod Krishna Kaul, the
following pertinent observations have been made:-
―41. These parameters fall within the scope of permissible
classification. In taxation matters, a narrow approach to
classification should not be adopted as in the words of the Supreme
Court ‘the power of the legislature to classify is of wide range and
flexibility so that it can adjust its system of taxation in all proper
and reasonable ways’.
42. A point had been raised that clause (j) of section 116A(1) [“such
other parameters as may be considered relevant by the Municipal
Valuation Committee”] is open-ended and leaves unguided and un-
canalised discretion with the MVC. We do not agree with this
submission for the simple reason that the said clause (j) is not to be
read in isolation but in conjunction with the other clauses from
which it will take colour.
43. Sub-section (2) of section 116A requires the MVC to
recommend, groupwise, (a) the base unit area value of any owner
occupied vacant land, or any wholly owner-occupied building of
15
Signature Not Verified
(1975) 2 SCC 175 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 51 –
pucca structure, constructed in the year 2000 or thereafter, and put
to exclusive residential use, and (b) the factor for increasing or
decreasing or for not increasing or decreasing, the base unit area
values in respect of each of the parameters of type of colony, use,
age, type of structure and occupancy status of the vacant land or
building as the case may be, subject to a lower limit of zero point
five and upper limit of ten point zero.
44. Once the MVC makes its recommendations, the MCD, by virtue
of section 116B, is required to declare its intention to classify
vacant lands and buildings in each ward into such colonies and
groups of lands and buildings as the MCD may, by public notice,
specify. The MCD is also required to specify, in such public notice,
the base value it proposes to specify per unit area of vacant land
and per unit area of covered space of buildings within each such
group and also the factors for increasing or decreasing, or for not
increasing or decreasing, the base unit area values of vacant lands
and buildings. In terms of section 116B(2), if any representation is
received by MCD, pursuant to the public notice, from any group in
any colony, the MCD is required to refer the representation to the
MVC for reconsideration. The decision of the MVC thereon, subject
to the provisions of section 116K, is binding on the MCD.
45. Section 116C also enables any owner or occupier of any vacant
land or building to submit his objection regarding — the manner of
classification of any group or groups, the base value per unit area
of vacant land or the base value per unit area of covered space of
buildings in any group and/or the multiplicative factors specified in
Section 116A(2)(b) – to the MCD within 30 days from the
publication of the public notice. Any such objection has to be
considered by the MVC and that, too, after giving the objector an
opportunity of being heard as per the prescribed procedure. Once
all this is done and 30 days have expired from the date of
publication of the public notice under section 116B and the
recommendations of the MVC on the objections are considered, the
MCD is required by section 116C(3) to issue a public notice
specifying, groupwise, the base unit area value of vacant land and
the base unit area value of covered space of buildings and the
factors referred to in section 116A(2)(b). The proviso to section
116C(3) stipulates that the MCD shall not alter the unit area values
recommended by the MVC without approval of the Government. 46.
Ultimately, section 116D(1) stipulates that, subject to the provisions
of section 169, the base unit area value of vacant land and base unit
area of covered space of buildings in any group, as specified under
section 116C(3), shall be final. And, section 116D(2) requires that
the MCD shall publish the final base unit area values and the
multiplicative factors. 47. It is in this manner that the UAV (unit
area value) and the multiplicative factors — AF (Age Factor), OF
(Occupancy Factor), UF (Use Factor) and SF (Structure Factor) –
are determined and notified to the public at large. As indicated in
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 52 –
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the MCD in WP(C) No. 8030
of 2003, all these steps were followed. It is also stated therein that
the MVC constituted under section 116 had considered the
objections received pursuant to the public notice dated 03.01.2004
issued by the MCD and had even recommended changes after
giving the objectors opportunity of hearing. It is also stated that the
classification of colonies/areas/localities is based on the parameters
prescribed under the Act. 48. It is pertinent to note that the
classification exercise conducted by the MVC has resulted in eight
(8) categories (A to H) in which colonies/ areas/ localities in Delhi
have been placed. Each of these categories has been prescribed a
UAV, ranging from 630 per sq.m for Category A to 100 per sq.m.
for Category H. The Age Factor (AF) ranges from 0.5, for covered
spaces constructed prior to 1960, to 1, for covered spaces
constructed in 2000 and thereafter. As regards the Occupancy
Factor (OF), it is 1 if self-occupied and 2 if tenanted. The Use
Factor (UF) varies from 1 for Residential and Public Purpose to 10
for Star Hotels (3 star & above), Hoardings and Towers. The Use
Factor for Industry, Entertainment, Recreation & Clubs has been
specified as 3 and that of Utilities and Business as 2 and 4,
respectively. Finally, the Structure Factor (SF) for pucca and semi-
pucca buildings is 1, while it is 0.5 for kutcha buildings.
49. From the above discussion, it is apparent that clear guidelines
have been prescribed under the new regime for, first of all,
classifying colonies/ areas/ localities in Delhi into different
categories depending upon the parameters as specified in clauses
(a) to (j) of section 116A(1) and, secondly, for arriving at the base
unit area values and the multiplicative factors. Thus, the provisions
of section 116A and other related provisions cannot be regarded as
being arbitrary or contrary to article 14 of the Constitution.‖
40. It could very well be seen that the Court has placed reliance on
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Budhan Choudhry v.
The State of Bihar16, wherein, it was held that Article 14 of the
constitution prohibits class legislation but does not proscribe
reasonable classificationand this proposition of law has stood the test
of time.
41. A glance over the well settled jurisprudence on Article 14
would evince that the thrust of permissible classification rests on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
16
Signature Not Verified
AIR 1955 SC 191 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 53 –
grouped together from others, left out of the groups, and the
differentia therein, must have a rationale nexus to the object sought to
be achieved by the Statute in question. In case of permissible
classification, mathematical nicety and perfect equalitymay not be
desirable to be reckoned. One of the earliest authoritative references
with respect to the extent and scope of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India can be gainfully found in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v.
Union of India17, wherein, the Supreme Court has emphatically noted
as under:-
―11. The decisions clearly lay down that though Article 14
forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification for the purpose of legislation. In order, however,
to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must
be fulfilled, viz. (i) that the classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that
are grouped together from those that are left out of the group;
and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the
objects sought to be achieved by the statute in question [See Shri
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar& Ors.5].
The classification may be founded on differential basis
according to objects sought to be achieved but what is implicit
in it is that there ought to be a nexus, i.e. casual connection
between the basis of classification and object of the statute
under consideration. It is equally well settled by the decisions of
this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a
substantive law but also by a law of procedure.‖
42. The rigor of law with respect to the aforesaid facet of equality
ripened with the passage of time through a catena of judicial
pronouncements and the Supreme Court, in the case of KR Lakshman
v. Karnataka Electricity Board18, has eloquently held that the Court
has to apply dual test i.e., whether the classification is rational and
based upon an intelligible differentia, which distinguished persons or
things that are grouped together from others and whether the basis of
17
(1983) 1 SCC 305
18
Signature Not Verified
AIR 2001 SC 595 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 54 –
differentiation has any rational nexus or relation with its avowed
policy and objects.
43. In the same vein, reliance can be placed on a decision in the
case of Saurabh Chaudri and Ors v. UOI and Ors.19, wherein, the
principle of intelligible differentia was held to be pivotal in reasonably
classifying groups of shared characteristics, as distinguished from
other groups and such classification is justified, if it is aligned with the
intended purpose sought to be achieved.
44. The twin test of reasonable classification and rationale nexus
has also recently been applied by the Supreme Court in the case of
Rajbala v. State of Haryana20, wherein, the Court upheld the
rationality of classification of five categories of persons, who were
barred from contesting panchayat elections finding that the said
classification was reasonable.
45. It is also pertinent to lend credence on the decision in the case
of State of Bombay v. FN Balsara21, wherein, the Supreme Court took
a view that every classification, to some degree, is likely to produce
some inequality, and mere production of inequality is not enough. It
further noted that the presumption is always in favour of the
constitutionality of the enactment since it must be assumed that the
legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own
people and the discrimination is based on adequate grounds.
46. Reliance can also be placed on the decision in the case of RK
Garg and Ors. v. Union of India22, wherein, it has been held that the
presumption of constitutionality is enhanced in the case of law of
taxation and laws regulating economic activities as these laws are
19
AIR 2004 SC 2212
20
(2016) 2 SCC 445
21
AIR 1951 SC 318
22
Signature Not Verified
AIR 1981 SC 2138 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 55 –
conventionally understood to be the matters of policy which have been
arrived at after due deliberations of the adept professionals. Therefore,
only because there may be a probability of a better classification
cannot be a ground to strike down policy for infringing fundamental
right to equality.
47. Another test which has evolved over the course of time is the
test of manifest arbitrariness. The foundation of this test lies in the fact
that equality and arbitrariness cannot co-exist. An arbitrary action,
which is neither based on reason nor on fair-play, essentially results
into the propagation of inequality. In the facts of the present matter,
however, there appears to be no reason to apply the tests in isolation as
the primary question involved in the matter is with regard to the
validity of a classification.
48. Upon a perusal of factual matrix of the case vis-Ă -vis the
established position of law in the decisions referred hereinabove, it
becomes evident that Section 116A of the DMC Act duly empowers
MVC to recommend the classification of vacant lands and buildings in
any ward of Delhi into colonies and groups of lands and buildings
after taking into account the parameters enunciated, therein. On an
overall examination of various parameters, if MVC finds that the
group of certain buildings forms a separate class, the same can always
be placed distinctly and separately from other categories of buildings.
Such a placement, however, must satisfy the test of reasonableness
and refute class legislation.The parameters which are essentially
required to be examined, under Section 116A, inter alia, includes
settlement patterns, availability of civic and social infrastructure,
access to roads, access to district centres, local shopping centres,
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 56 –
convenience shopping centres, land prices and use-wise category of
buildings etc.
49. If the characteristics of the shops situated in a mall are looked
into, they certainly form a separate class on account of various
reasons, namely, (i) they are located in an integrated complex
comprising of bouquet of activities like eating joints, health and
fitness, cyber cafes, corporate offices, pubs, etc.; (ii) the malls are in a
way, one-stop destination catering to different needs of public at large;
(iii) there is always highest quality of civic and social infrastructure
available; (iv) on account of heavy footfall, corresponding extra
burden is obvious on Corporation and on various other Departments;
(v) the centres are comprising of multiple markets; (vi) every need of
the consumer from a needle to an anchor is met at such places etc.
These are only illustrative factors which distinguish the petitioners‟
entities from other entities of the similar nature in one or the other
way. There are bound to be other aspects as well to draw such
distinction from a normal shop situated in markets. Similarly, the
entities at multiplexes, metro stations and flattened factory also stand
out from traditional commercial setups of the similar nature, inter alia,
due to their unique ability to generate high levels of activity, create
commercial ecosystem around them and stimulate establishment of
high value urban spaces. The overall footprint of such
buildings/spaces on the available public resources is also on a different
plane as compared to normal shops or markets.
50. On a conjoint reading of Section 114D, which prescribes
different rates of taxation, between the minimum to maximum for
different colonies or for different groups of buildings in such colonies
and Section 116A of the DMC Act, the Court is of the considered
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 57 –
opinion that any placement of a set of buildings into a specific
category cannot be said to be a class legislation, rather the same would
be considered a reasonable classification. The said classification does
not reek of arbitrariness. The factors, as prescribed under Section
116A, can together be accounted for in arriving at such conclusion and
those shops/properties which are situated in a particular colony will
have no bearing, in view of the specialities attached to the sets of
specially classified shops/buildings. The location of shops in a
shopping mall, a multiplex, entities at metro stations etc. cannot be
compared with any other normal shop located in a local market. The
high-end local markets, however, would be considered differently for
their categorisation, but the same in itself will not detain MVC in
placing a particular set of shops or buildings with similar facilities and
ambience into Category „A‟ and describing them to be Super
Commercial Properties.
51. In the instant cases, more importantly, on publication of the
interim report, the objections were invited with respect to the
classification of properties and numerous other recommendations.
Various objections were received and considered, thoroughly, by the
MVC. It is an admitted position that none of the petitioners had raised
any objections at the relevant point of time.
52. It is noteworthy that the MVC is a creation under the Statute
and by virtue of the same, it is mandated to follow the procedure laid
down in the DMC Act. The Court, under its power of judicial review
can certainly examine the decision-making process, however, the
decision arrived at per se cannot be made amenable to the review,
unless the same is shown to be completely discriminatory, arbitrary or
illegal.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV - 58 -
53. The MVC-III vide its recommendations has assigned various
reasons as to why there is a need to categorize some of the properties
as Super Commercial Properties.The decision, therefore, is not bereft
of application of mind. The same rather derives strength from the
provisions of the DMC Act itself. Further, it needs to be noted that the
inherent statutory purpose of MVC is classification of colonies, lands
and buildings and thus, the MVC cannot be put to question for
discharging its statutory duties unless the action is procedurally
unconstitutional or reeks of arbitrariness or patent illegality or the
classification is not based on the relevant parameters. The Court
cannot lose its sight from the elementary purpose of the constitution of
MVC itself and merely because MVC has reasoned the paying
capacity of the shop owners as one of the factors for the
categorisation, the entire decision cannot be disturbed when the same
independently passes the scrutiny of law, particularly in light of the
tenets of equality and the fact that it is based on due consideration of
various other parameters.
54. It is well settled through various pronouncements of the
Supreme Court that the principle underlying the guarantee in Article
14 of the Constitution of India is not that the same rules of law should
be applicable to all persons within the territory of India or that the
remedy should be made available to them irrespective of difference of
circumstances. The said legal position has been reaffirmed even in the
decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India only signifies that all the
individuals in similarly placed circumstances shall be treated alike,
both in terms of privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
Undoubtedly, the legislature has a right of classifying persons and
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 59 –
placing those whose conditions are substantially similar under the
same rigour of law, while applying different rules to persons who are
differently situated. In making the classification, the legislature cannot
certainly be expected to provide an „abstract symmetry‟. What is
prohibited is arbitrary, artificial and an evasive classification. In
essence, classification must hinge upon real and substantial distinction
bearing a reasonable and just relation to the things in respect of which
the classification is made. It also remains undisputed that the
presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an
enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that
there has been transgression of constitutional principles. Whether the
classification, if any, is reasonable or arbitrary or is substantial has to
be adjudicated upon by the Courts and the decision must turn more on
one‟s common sense than on an over refined legal distinction of
subtleties (See:State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar23).
55. At this juncture, an ancillary issue which also merits
consideration is the extent of judicial review which can be exercised to
interfere with the authority of the Corporation to impose taxes.
56. It is beneficial to forthwith refer to the case of Khandige Sham
Bhat v. Agriculture Income Tax Officer24, wherein, the Supreme
Court has held that the Courts, in view of the inherent complexity of
fiscal legislation, admit a larger discretion to the legislature in the
matters of classification, so long as it adheres to the fundamental
principles underlying the doctrine of equality. The power of the
legislature to classify is said to be of wide range and flexibility so that
it can adjust its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways.
In the case of State of Kerala v. Haji K. Haji K. Kutty Naha and
23
AIR 1952 SC 75
24
Signature Not Verified
1963 3 SCR 809 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 60 –
Ors.25 relied upon by the petitioners, the classification was held to be
not permissible as while enacting Kerala Building Tax Act, no attempt
at any reasonable classification was found to have been made by the
legislature. The class to which a building belongs, the nature of
construction, the purpose for which it is used, its situation, its capacity
for profitable use, and other relevant circumstances which have a
bearing on matters of taxation were not considered, therein. The
method was adopted merely on the basis of floor area of the building,
irrespective of all other considerations. The Court noted that where
objects, persons or transactions, essentially dissimilar, are treated by
the imposition of a uniform tax, it may result into discrimination. A
refusal to make a rational classification may itself in some cases
operate as denial of equality. If the aforesaid enunciation of law is
applied under the facts of the present case, the same would justify the
recommendations of MVC-III, instead of sustaining the arguments of
the petitioners. The recommendations of MVC-III consider the nature
of the building, the object of its construction, persons who occupy the
premises, nature of transactions, potential for generation of
commercial activity, total constructed area and other circumstances as
has been noticed in preceding paragraphs. It is thus seen that the
decision in the case of Haji K. Haji26 would not support the case of the
petitioners.
57. The Supreme Court in the case of S.Kodar27, while considering
the argument of applicability of different rates of tax imposed on
different dealers, has held that as long as the tax retains its avowed
character and does not confiscate property to the State under the guise
25
1968 SCC OnLine SC 122
26
AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 378
27
Signature Not Verified
1974 SCC (4) 422 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 61 –
of a tax, the reasonableness of the tax is outside judicial ken. The
volume of rate of tax depending upon the turnover was held to be
permissible, holding therein, that the basis for the same isthat a large
dealer occupies a position of economic superiority, thus, making his
tax heavier is not arbitrary, rather it is an attempt to rationalise the
payment proportionately with the capacity to pay and arrive at a more
genuine equality. It has also been held that the economic wisdom of
tax is within legislative domain. Similar view has been taken in the
case of Sadik Bakery28 wherein, the Supreme Court was called upon
to consider whether there is rationality in prescribing different tax
rates depending upon the capacity to pay tax.The Supreme Court took
a view that there is rationality in the said proposition and the same
principle was found to be sound in common sense and in consonance
with the social justice. In the case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals29, the
Supreme Court has held that on the question of economic regulations
and related matters, the Court must prefer the legislative judgment.
58. Recently, in the case of Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India30,the
Supreme Court has reiterated the enunciation of law that the Court
ought not to substitute its own view by supplanting the role of
anexpert, when technical questions arise particularly in the financial or
economic realm; experts with domain knowledge in the field have
expressed their views; and such views are duly considered by the
expert regulator in designing policies and implementing them in the
exercise of its power to frame subordinate legislation.
59. The settled law on the extent of jurisdiction of the Courts to test
the constitutional validity of the fiscal statutes states that the taxing
28
1988 SCR (2) 7
29
1983 (4) SCC 45
30
Signature Not Verified
2024 INSC 3 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 62 –
statute is not exposed to attack on the ground of discrimination merely
because different rates of taxation are prescribed for different
categories of persons, transactions, occupations or objects, as has been
expounded in the case of N. Venugopala Ravi Varma Rajah v. Union
of India31. Further, in the case of The Amalgamated Tea Estates Co.
Ltd. v. State of Kerala32, it has been held that as revenue is the first
necessity of the State and as taxes are raised for various purposes and
by an adjustment of diverse elements, the Court grants to the State
greater choice of classification in the field of taxation than in other
spheres. It is also pertinent to note that the taxation regime of a
country is a reflection of the social outlook of the country and a sound
taxation policy lies at the core of the idea of social justice. For, the
tool of taxation aims to impose a proportionate burden on the subjects
for the collective benefit of all.
60. In the instant case, MVC-III was constituted in accordance with
the statute comprising of experts and there is no assertion in the
petitions that MVC-III has not acted as per the procedure laid down in
the extant rules and regulations. MVC-III submitted its interim report
on 25.06.2010 and thereafter, a sub-committee of five members was
set up by the Corporation for scrutinizing the interim report. The sub-
committee submitted its report to the Standing Committee of the
Corporation. On 15.12.2010, the Standing Committee approved the
report of the Sub-committee and recommended it to the Corporation.
It is, only thereafter, that a notice was issued by the Corporation
notifying the interim report of MVC-III declaring its intention to
classify vacant land and building in each ward and inviting
31
(1969) 1 SCC 681
32
Signature Not Verified
(1974) 4 SCC 415 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 63 –
representation, thereon, as mandated by Section 116B of the DMC
Act.
61. The aforesaid public notice dated 02.01.2011, received 131
representations which were duly scrutinized and heard by the MVC-III
after fixing a date/time for each of them, through a notice issued in
that regard. A public notice inviting suggestions, by the newly
constituted MVC had also been issued on 09.09.2009 at the time of
commencement of its work. The same had also led to numerous
representations which were also heard by MVC-III along with the
representations received pursuant to the public notice dated
02.01.2011. As stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents,
MVC-III held sixteen (16) hearings to consider the representations on
various dates i.e., 24.01.2011, 28.01.2011, 31.01.2011, 02.02.2011,
04.02.2011, 09.01.2011, 11.02.2011, 14.02.2011, 21.02.2011,
23.02.2011, 25.02.2011, 28.02.2011, 04.03.2011, 07.03.2011,
09.03.2011 and 25.03.2011. It is only thereafter that MVC-III gave its
final report which is binding upon the Corporation in terms of Section
116 B (2) of the DMC Act. Admittedly, none of the petitioners had at
any point of time raised any objections. This Court, therefore, under
such circumstances, is deprived of any consideration of the
petitioners‟ objection in the first place itself, which further narrows the
scope of interference directly by the Constitutional Court.
62. The petitioners have also strenuously argued that on account of
the classification of land as per Delhi Circle Rates, 2014, the colonies
in Delhi had already been categorised from „A‟ to „H‟ for the purposes
of their monetary value based on various factors laid down therein,
and therefore, classification of the entities present in a particular
colony cannot be made differently from the colony they are located in.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV - 64 -
However, the said argument also does not hold any water as if an
entity stands on a different footing from the other entities located in
the same colony and the same can be distinctly classified as similar to
a different colony category, it would be justified to do so. Merely
because an entity lies in a particular colony, it cannot be a sufficient
reason to classify it in the same category despite the fact that the entity
is differently placed in the said area. In fact, to do so would reflect
obliviousness on the part of the municipal authorities from the
prevailing ground realities of commercial spaces.
63. Even if one is to consider the relevant provision purely on the
anvil of statutory interpretation, it is inescapable to note that colonies,
lands and buildings are couched as separate entities for the purpose of
classification. Thus, the classification of buildings, such as malls,
metro stations etc., on the same piece of land is a permissible
classification and the same is not contingent upon the classification of
the land parcel on which such buildings are situated. If the submission
of the petitioners is to be accepted, the same would tantamount to
depriving the municipal authority from exercising its statutory
mandate in its true letter and spirit.
64. An upshot of the aforesaid discussion would lead to conclude
that the categorisation of the petitioners as Super Commercial
Properties stands the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The factors enumerated by MVC-III provide a clear and
identifiable basis for a reasonable classification and more so, the said
classification also meets the standards of rational nexus with the
legitimate municipal objective. Therefore, the differential treatment
alleged by the petitioners is in line with the Constitutional scheme and
cannot be said to be arbitrary or whimsical.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV - 65 -
65. The Court, therefore, finds that neither there is any
unreasonable classification nor there is any violation of the provisions
of Section 116A of the DMC Act. The argument with respect to
unreasonable classification and the violation of the provisions of
Section 116A of the DMC Act, stands rejected. Consequently, the
Court does not find any reason, much less a cogent reason to interdict
with the authority of imposition of tax which has been reasonably
exercised by the Corporation.
Issue (ii)
66. Having decided the aforesaid issue against the petitioners, the
Court shall now proceed to determine the validity of reopening of
assessments for the previous years. An argument has been made on the
strength of decision of this Court in the case of Ved Marwah33 that the
Corporation in some of the writ petitions sought to recover property
tax with retrospective effect.
67. If the controversy in the case of Ved Marwah34 is looked at, the
same was related with respect to challenge laid under Section 72 of the
New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as
‘NDMC Act’). In paragraph no.13 of the said decision, the Court
noted that the notices for revising the assessment in all cases were
issued over a decade prior to the passing of the final orders. While
considering the provisions of Section 72 of the NDMC Act, the Court
took note of the decision in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v.
Bhatinda District Corporate Milk Producers Union Ltd.35 with
respect to limitation on exercise of such power and held that the
finalisation of assessment list or its revision after over twelve years
33
2018 SCC OnLine Del 8096
34
2018 SCC OnLine Del 8096
35
Signature Not Verified
(2007) 11 SCC 363 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 66 –
cannot be countenanced. The same was found to be unreasonable and
arbitrary.
68. Section 123B of the DMC Act, in the instant cases, requires the
owner of any vacant land or covered space of buildings or any other
persons liable to pay the property tax or any occupier in the absence of
such owner or person to file a return of self-assessment within 60 days
of coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2003.
69. The argument with respect to retrospective taxation deserves to
be considered in view of the period of the demand notice. The
Corporation, by way of „Chart no.1-Shops in Malls‟, has placed on
record,inter alia, property details, challenge, assessment order details,
demand notice, period and amount along with remarks. The said chart
is extracted as under:-
Chart No. 1- SHOPS IN MALLS
A. (Demand Notice for the Period of MVC-I & MVC-III)S.N Case Property Prayers/Challenges Assessment Demand Remark
o. Title Details Order details Notice
period and
amount
1. HARS Unit No. ď‚· Quashing Vide No. D-612 Amount – No proper
H 27-28, notification dtd 28.09.2021 as per document
dt. (in favour of MVC 1st- submitted
VARD GF, 31.03.2017. Harshvardhan Rs. supporting
HAN Unity 11.07.2018, Bansal) wef from 6036941 payment of
One 18.06.2019.
BANS 01.04.2008 to (01.04.200 correct
Mall.
31.03.2017. After 8 to PTR before
AL V/s Plot no. ď‚· Quashing
29 implementation 31.03.2017 implementa
Assessment
EAST and 31, of MVC 3, Bill ) tion of
Notice and
DMC& CBD Order dt. for the FY 2017- MVC-III
Shahadar 28.09.2021. 2018 to 2019-20
ANR
a, ď‚· Quashing as per
W.P.(C Delhi- 32. invoices dt. MVC 3rd- Willfully&
)- 03.05.2019 Rs. conscious
and 8757027 omission to
13465/ 15.11.2019. (2017- pay
2021 demanding
2018 and property
Signature Not Verified Rs. Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 67 –
71,87,941 2019-20) tax after
for 2017-19. the coming
ď‚· UAV into effect
factor- Rs. of MVC-III
Total- Rs.
630/-, UF-6,
OF-2 and 1,47,93,96
Category 'A' 8 (with
be quashed. penalty Therefore,
ď‚· Property tax and power U/s-
Rs. 28, interest as 123D
87,587.546 on date) justifiably
for the years (after invoked
2008-2009 adjustment
to 2021-22- of the paid
is already amount)
deposited
and the
same to be
taken as full
and final
payment.
2. SAVIT Unit No. ď‚· Quashing Vide No. D-307 Amount - No proper
LG- 2, notification
RI dtd 13.07.2021 (in MVC 1"- document
Unity dt. Rs. submitted
MITTA One 30.06.2018, favour of 31,67,060 supporting
11.07.2018,
L V/S Mall Plot Petitioner) wef (01.04.201 payment of
no. 29 18.06.2019. 0 to correct
EAST from 01.04.2010
and 31, 31.03.2017 PTR before
DMC & CBD ď‚· Quashing to 31.03.2017. ) implementa
ANR Shahadar Assessment Afterimplementati tion of
a, Delhi- Notice dt. MVC-III
W.P.(C) 32. 06.07.2021 on of MVC 3, Bill
MVC 3rd -
13463/2 and for the FY 2017- Rs.
13.07.2021 91,78,975 Willfully&
021 2018 to 2019-20.
ď‚· Quashing (2017- conscious
Demand
2018 and omission to
Notice dt.
2019-20) pay
11.10.2021
demanding property
Rs. tax after
94,49,071 Total- Rs. the coming
including 1,23,46,03 into effect
penalty and 5 (with of MVC-III
interest for penalty
2010-2020 and
interest as Therefore,
ď‚· UAV on date) power U/s-
factor- Rs. (after 123D
630/-, UF- adjustment justifiably
6, OF-2 of the paid invoked
and amount
Category
'A' be
quashed.
ď‚· Property tax
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 68 -
Rs.
38,63,826
for the
years 2008-
2009
3. SAVIT Unit No. ď‚· Quashing Vide No D-556 Amount- as No proper
RI GF-24, notification dtd21.09.2021 (in per MVC document
MITTA Unity dt. favour of 1st -Rs. submitted
L V/S One Mall, 29.03.2016,3 Petitioner) wef 5,28,697(01 supporting
EAST Plot no. 0.06.2018, from 01.04.2010 .04.2010 payment of
DMC & 29 and 11.07.2018, to to31.03.201 correct PTR
ANR 31, CBD 18.06.2019. 31.03.2017.Afteri 7) as per before
W.P.(C) Shahadar mplementation of MVC 3rd- implementa
- a, Delhi- ď‚· Quashing MVC 3, Bill for Rs. tion of
13468/2 32. Assessment the FY 2017-2018 38,28,917 MVC-III
021 Notice dt. to 2019-20. (2017-2018
Willfully&
21.09.2021 and 2019-
conscious
20) Total-
ď‚· UAV Rs.
omission to
factor- Rs. pay
43,57,614
property tax
630/-, UF-6, (with
OF-2 and after the
penalty and
Category 'A' coming into
interest as
be quashed. effect of
on date)
MVC-Ill
(after
ď‚· Property tax
adjustment Therefore,
Rs.15,29,89
of the paid power Us-
3 for the
amount) 123D
years 2008-
justifiably
2009 to
invoked
2021-2022
already
deposited to
be taken as
full and final
payment.
4. RAKES Unit No. ď‚· Quashing Vide No. D-810 Amount - No proper
H F-102, notification dtd 13.11.2020 (in as per document
submitted
NAND V3S dt. favour of MVC 1st- supporting
A & Mall, Plot 30.06.2018, Petitioner) wef Rs. 51,244 payment of
correct
ANR. no. 10 11.07.2018, from 01.04.2013 (01.04.2013
PTR before
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 69 -
V/s Lakshmi 18.06.2019. to 31.03.2017. to implementa
EAST Nagar, After 31.03.2017) tion of
DMC District ď‚· Quashing implementation of as per
MVC-III
W.P.(C) Centre, Assessment MVC 3, Bill for MVC 3rd- Willfully&
conscious
- Delhi- 92 Order dt. the FY 2017-2018 Rs.
omission to
2394/20 13.11.2020 to 2019-20. 8,53,994 pay
property
21 (2017-2018 tax
ď‚· Quashing after
and 2019- the coming
Demand dt. into effect
20) Total-
Notice of MVC-IlI
Rs.
13.11.2020 Therefore,
9,05,238 power U/s-
demanding
(with 123D
Rs. 9,05,238
penalty and justifiably
including invoked
interest as
penalty and
on date)
interest for
(after
2019-20 and
adjustment
ď‚· Restraining of the paid
EDMC from amount)
taking
coercive
action on the
basis of the
aforesaid
Demand
Notice.
5. GULSH Unit No. ď‚· Quashing Vide No. D-1166 Amount - No proper
AN S- notification dtd 09.12.2021 (in as per document
CHAW 201Unity dt, favour of MVC 1st- submitted
LA One Mall, 29.03.2016, Petitioner) wef Rs. supporting
AND Plot no. 30.06.2018, from 01.04.2008 25,20,555 payment of
ANR 29 and 11.07.2018, to 31.03.2017. (01.04.2008 correct PTR
V/s 31, CBD 18.06.2019. After to before
EAST Shahadar implementation 31.03.2017) implementa
ď‚· Quashing
DMC & a, Delhi- ofMVC 3, Bill for as per tion of
Assessment rd
ANR 32. the Fy 2017-2018 MVC 3 – MVC-IIII
Notice dt.
W.P. to 2020-21 Rs.
09.12.2021. Willfully
(C)- 60,15,338 conscious
2864/20 (2017-2018 omission to
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 70 -
22 ď‚· Quashing and 2020- pay
21) property
Assessment
tax after
Order dt. the coming
Total- Rs.
17.03.2020. into effect
85,35,893
of MVC-III
(with
ď‚· Quashing Therefore,
penalty
rower U/s-
Demand and
123D
interest as
Notice dt. justifiably
on date)
invoked
04.01.2022 (after
adjustment
demanding
of the paid
Rs. amount)
75,84,773
including
penalty and
interest for
2008-2021
and
ď‚· UAV factor-
Rs. 630/-,
UF-6, OF-2
and
Category 'A'
be quashed.
ď‚· Property tax
Rs.
33,38,937,
for the years
2008-2009
to 2021-22-
already
deposited to
be taken as
full
payment.
6. BABIT Unit No. • Quashing Vide No. D-308 Amount - No proper
A LG 3, notification dt. dtd 13.07.2021 (in as per document
MITTA LG, Unity 30.06.2018, favour of MVC 1st- submitted
L V/s One Mall, 11.07.2018, Petitioner) wef Rs. supporting
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 71 -
EAST Plot no. 18.06.2019. • from 01.04.2010 2162,141 payment of
DMC & 29 and Quashing Demand to 31.03.2017. (01.04.2008 correct PTR
ANR 31, CBD Notice dt. 11.10.2021 After to before
W.P.(C) Shahadar demanding Rs. implementation of 31.03.2017) implementa
– a, Delhi- 86,34,899 including MVC 3, Bill for as per tion of
rd
13224/2 32. penalty and interest the FY 2017-2018 MVC 3 – MVC-IIII
021 for 2010-2020 along to 2019-20. Rs. Willfully&
with the condition in 7955,410 conscious
Demand Notice for (2017-2018 omission to
non-payment • UAV and 2019- pay
factor- Rs. 630/-, UF- 20) Total – property tax
6, OF-2 and Category Rs. after the
‘A’ be quashed. • 1,01,17,552 coming into
Property tax Rs. (with effect of
31,07,177 for the penalty and MVC-III
years 2008-2009 to interest as Therefore,
2021-2022 already on date) power U/s-
deposited to be taken (after 123D
as full and final adjustment justifiably
payment. of the paid invoked
amount)
7. BABIT Unit No. Quashing Vide No. D-614 Amount - No proper
A GF 23, notification dt. dtd 28.09.2021 (in as per document
30.06.2018, submitted
MITTA Unity 11.07.2018, favour of MVC 1st- supporting
L V/s One Mall, 18.06.2019. • Petitioner) wef Rs. payment of
Quashing Demand correct
EAST Plot no. from 01.04.2010 8,57,220(01
Notice dt. PTR before
DMC & 29 and 12.10.2021 to 31.03.2017. .04.2010 to implementa
ANR 31, CBD demanding Rs. After 31.03.2017) tion of
65,37,423 including MVC-III!
W.P.(C) Shahadar penalty and interest implementation of as per Willfully&
– a, Delhi- for 2010-2020 along MVC 3, Bill for MVC 3rd- conscious
with the condition in omission to
13225/2 32. the FY 2017-2018 Rs.
Demand Notice for pay
021 non-payment • UAV to 2019-20. 56,80,202 property
factor- Rs. 630/-, (2017-2018 tax after
UF-6, OF-2 and the coming
Category 'A' be and 2019- into effect
quashed. • Property 20) Total- of MVC-III
tax Rs. 24,02,852 for Therefore,
Rs.
the years 2008-2009 power U/s-
to 2021-2022 already 65,37,423 123D
deposited to be taken (with justifiably
as full and final invoked
penalty and
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 72 -
payment. interest as
on date)
(after
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
8. RAM Unit • Quashing AO- 46A, B, C- 46 A,B,C No proper
SWAR No.G-46 notification dt. Vide No. D- Demand document
30.06.2018, submitted
OOP A, B,C,D, 1455dtd Amount - supporting
Lakshmi Nagar
JASWA GF, V3S 19.02.2021 (in as per payment of
District Centre, correct
L Mall, Plot Delhi- 92. favour of MVC 1"-
PTRbefore
V/sEAS no. 10 11.07.2018, Petitioner) Rs. implementa
18.06.2019. •
T DMC Quashing Notice dt. weffrom 1508475(01 tion of
MVC-IIII
& ANR 06.12.2021 • 01.04.2006 to .04.2006 to
Directing EDMC to Willfully
W.P.(C) 31.03.2017. After 31.03.2017)
not take coercive conscious
- action on basis of implementation of as per omission to
1430/20 Notice dt. MVC 3, Bill for MVC 3rd - pay
06.12.2021, and at property
22 large the FY 2017-2018 RS. tax after
to 2018-19. AO 1339131(20 the coming
into effect
46D- vide no. 17-2018
of MVC-III
1996 dtd. and 2018-
Therefore,
19.03.2020 (in 19) Total-
power U/s-
favour of Rs. 123D
Petitioner) wef 2847606 justifiably
invoked
from 01.04.2014 (with
to 31.03.2017. penalty and
After interest as
implementation of on date)
MVC 3, Bill for (after
the FY 2017-2018 adjustment
to 2019-20. as per of the paid
MVC amount) *
46 D
Demand
Amount -
as per
MVC 1st-
Rs.
135750(01.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 73 -
04.2014 to
31.03.2017)
as per
MVC 3rd-
Rs. 728923
(2017-2018
and 2019-
20) Total-
Rs. 864674
(with
penalty and
interest as
on date)
(after
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
9. SHASH Unit No. • Quashing 1. 203, 204 Vide 1. 203, No proper
I KANT S- 203, notification No. D-1230 dtd 204A document
29.03.2016, dt. submitted
CHAW 204, 30.06.2018, 14.12.2021 (in Amount - supporting
LA 204A, SF, 11.07.2018, favour of as per payment of
18.06.2019. • correct
AND Unity Petitioner) wef MVC 1"-
Quashing PTR before
ORS One Mall, Assessment Notice from 01.04.2008 Rs. implementa
V/s Plot no. dt.04.12.2021. • to 31.03.2017. 1617294(01 tion of
Quashing MVC-III!
EAST 29 and Assessment Order dt. After .04.2008 to Willfully&
DMC & 31, CBD 14.12.2021 • implementation of 31.03.2017) conscious
Quashing Demand omission to
ANR Shahadar MVC 3, Bill for as per
Notice dt. pay
W.P.(C) a, Delhi- 04.01.2022 the FY 2017-2018 MVC 3"*- property
- 32. demanding RS. to 2021-22. 2. Rs. tax after
71,42,374 for Shop the coming
4374/20 Nos. 203, 204, and 204A- Vide No. 5525079 into effect
22 Rs. 20,05,558 for D-1231 (2017-2018 of MVC-
Shop No. 204A IIITherefor
and 2021-
including penalty dtd 14.12.2021 (in e, power
and interest for 22) Total- U/s- 123D
favour of
2008-2022, along Rs. justifiably
with condition in Petitioner) wef invoked
7142374
Demand Notice for from 01.04.2008
(with
non-payment • UAV to 31.03.2017.
factor- Rs. 630/-, penalty and
After
UF-6, OF-2 and interestas
Category 'A' be implementation of
on date)
Signature Not Verified quashed. • Property Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 74 -
tax Rs. 13,60,748, MVC 3, Bill for (after
for Shop Nos. the FY 2017-2018 adjustment
203,204 and Rs.
60,669 for Shop No. to 2021-22. of the paid
204A for the years amount) 2.
2008-2009 to 2021-
Demand for
22-
204A- as
already deposited to
be taken as full and per MVC
final payment. 1"- Rs.
450048(01.
04.2008 to
31.03.2017)
as per
MVC 3"°-
Rs.
1555540
(2017-2018
and 2021-
22) Total-
Rs.
2005588
(with
penalty and
interest as
on date)
(after
adjustment
of the paid
amount
10. NARE Unit No. Vide No. D-550 Amount - No proper
SH GF-25, dtd 21.09.2021 as per document
KUMA Unity (in favour of MVC 1"- submitted
R One Petitioner) wef Rs. supporting
AGGA Mall, from 01.04.2010 12,66,703 payment of
RWAL Plot no. to 31.03.2017. (01.04.201 correct
V/s 29 and After 0 to PTR before
EAST 31, CBD implementation 31.03.2017 implementa
DMC Shahadar of MVC 3, Bill ) as per tion of
& ANR a, Delhi- for the FY 2017- MVC 3* – MVC-III
W.P.(C 32. 2018 to 2019-20. Rs. Willfully&
)- 79,70,346 conscious
13462/ (2017- omission to
2021 2018 and pay
2019-20) property
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 75 –
Total- tax after
Rs92,37,04 the coming
9 (with into effect
penalty of MVC-III
and Therefore,
interest as power U/s-
on date) 123D
(after justifiably
adjustment invoked
of the paid
amount)
11. NARES Unit No. Vide No. D-1367 Amount - No proper
H GF-30- dtd 21.12.2021 (in as per documenti
submitted
MALH 32, Unity favour of MVC 1%- supporting
OTRA One Mall, Petitioner) wef Rs. 265044 payment of
correct
AND Plot no. from 01.04.2015 (01.04.2015
PTR before
ORS 29 and to 31.03.2017. to implementa
V/s 31, CBD After 31.03.2017) tion of
Willfully&
EAST Shahadar implementation of as per conscious
DMC & a, Delhi- MVC 3, Bill for MVC 3rd - omission to
pay
ANR 32. the FY 2017-2018 Rs.
property
W.P.(C) to 2020-21. 47,96,429 tax after
- (2017-2018 the coming
into effect
2790/20 and MVC- of MVC-III
22 III 2020- Therefore,
power U/s-
21) Total-
123D
Rs.50,61,47 justifiably
3 (with invoked
penalty and
interest as
on date)
(after
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
11. HARIS Unit No. Vide No. D-535 Amount - No proper
H GF- dtd20.09.2021 (in as per documents
ubmitted
26,Unity favour of MVC supporting
CHAW
One Mall, Petitioner) wef 1st.Rs. payment of
LA V/s
correct
EAST Plot no. from 01.04.2008 1014199(01
PTR before
DMC
29 and to 31.03.2017. .04.2008 to implementa
& ANR
tion of
Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 76 –
)- 31, CBD After 31.03.2017) MVC-III|
2869/2 Shahadar implementation of as per Willfully&
022 conscious
a, Delhi- MVC 3, Bill for MVC 3″*- omission to
32. the FY 2017-2018 Rs. pay
property
to 2019-20. 1613760(20
tax after
17-2018 the coming
and 2019- into effect
of MVC-III
20) Total- Therefore,
Rs. power U/s-
123D
26,27,958
justifiably
(with invoked
penalty and
interest as
on date)
(after
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
13. MS Unit No. Vide No. D-1232, Amount - No proper
AGGA GF- 29, dtd 14.12.2021 (in as per document
RWAL submitted
PLAZ Unity favour of MVC 1-Rs. supporting
A One Mall, Petitioner) wef 2,15,534 payment of
PRIVA correct
Plot no. from 01.04.2008 (01.04.2008
TE PTR before
LIMIT 29 and to 31.03.2017. to implementa
ED V/s 31, CBD After 31.03.2017) tion of
EAST MVC-IIII
DMC Shahadar implementation of as per Willfully&
& ANR a, Delhi- MVC 3, Bill for MVC 3rd - conscious
W.P.(C omission to
32. the FY 2017-2018 Rs.
)- pay
2875/2 to 2021-22. 1543823 property
022 (2017-2018 tax after
the coming
and 2021- into effect
22) Total- of MVC-III
Therefore,
Rs.
power U/s-
17,59,357 123D
(with justifiably
invoked
penalty and
interest as
on date)
(after
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 77 -
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
14. ISHWA Unit No. Vide No. D-553, Amount -
R GF- 22, dt 21.09.2021 (in as per
MVC 1$_
CHAN Unity favour of Rs.
D One Mall, Petitioner) wef 9,35,431
(01.04.201
MITTA Plot no. from 01.04.2010
0 to
L V/s 29 and to 31.03.2017. 31.03.2017
EAST 31, CBD After ) as per
MVC 3″* –
DMC & Shahadar implementation of Rs.
ANR a, Delhi- MVC 3, Bill for 5382512
(2017-
W.P.(C) 32. the FY 2017-2018
2018 and
- to 2019-20. 2019-20)
13219/2 Total- Rs.
63,17,943(
021 with
penalty
and
interest as
on date)
(after
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
15. ISHWE Unit No. Vide No. D-310, Amount - No proper
R LG- 4, dtd 13.07.2021 (in as per document
CHAN submitted
D Unity favour of MVC 1"- supporting
MITTA One Mall, Petitioner) wef Rs. payment of
L V/S correct
Plot no. from 01.04.2010 1512686
EAST PTR before
DMC 29 and to 31.03.2017. (01.04.2010 implementa
& ANR 31, CBD After to tion of
W.P.(C MVC-III
)- Shahadar implementation of 31.03.2017) Willfully
13440/ a, Delhi- MVC 3, Bill for as per conscious
2021 omission to
32. the FY 2017-2018 MVC 3d-
pay
to 2019-20. Rs. property
82,99,388 tax after
the coming
(2017-2018 into effect
and 2019- of MVC-III
Therefore,
20) Total-
power U/s-
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 78 -
Rs. 123D
9812074 justifiably
invoked
(with
penalty and
interest as
on date)
(after
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
16. MUKE Unit No. Vide No. D-306, Amount - No proper
SH LG- 1, dtd 13.07.2021 (in as per document
MITTA submitted
L V/s Unity favour of MVC 1st- supporting
EAST One Mall, Petitioner wef Rs. payment of
DMC correct
Plot no. from 01.04.2008 20,93,309
& ANR PTRI
W.P.(C 29 and to 31.03.2017. (01.04.2008 before
)- 31, CBD After to implementa
13464/ tion of
2021 Shahadar implementation of 31.03.2017) MVC-III|
a, Delhi- MVC 3, Bill for as per Willfully&
conscious
32. the FY 2017-2018 MVC 3d-
omission to
to 2019-20. Rs. pay
7936739 property
tax after
(2017-2018 the coming
and 2019- into effect
of MVC-Ill
20) Total-
Therefore,
Rs. power U/s-
1,00,30,047 123D
justifiably
(with invoked
penalty and
interest as
on date)
(after
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
17. MUKE Unit No. Assessment not As per
SH LG- done. PTRAmou
nt - as per
MITTA 21,Unity MVC 1%-
L V/S Rs.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 79 -
EAST One Mall, 1528216
DMC Plot no. (01.04.200
& ANR 8 to
W.P.(C 29 and 31.03.2017
)- 31, CBD ) as per
13470/ MVC 3d-
Shahadar
2021 Rs.
a, Delhi- 6560676(2
32. 017-2018
and 2020-
21) Total-
Rs.
8088892
(with
penalty
and
interest as
on date)
(after
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
18. NARE Unit No. Vide No. D-312 Amount - No proper
SH LG-5, dtd 13.07.2021 (in as per document
KUMA submitted
R Unity favour of MVC 1"- supporting
AGGA One Mall, Petitioner) wef Rs. 811562 payment of
RWAL correct
Plot no. from 01.04.2010 (01.04.2010
V/s PTR before
EAST 29 and to 31.03.2017. to implementa
DMC 31, CBD After 31.03.2017) tion of
& ANR MVC-III
W.P. Shahadar implementation of as per Willfully&
(C)- a, Delhi- MVC 3, Bill for MVC 3 - conscious
13490/ omission to
32. the FY 2017-2018 Rs.
2021 pay
to 2019-20. 5858450(20 property
17-2018 tax after
the coming
and 2019- into effect
20) Total- of MVC-III
Therefore,
Rs.
power U/s-
6670012 123D
(with justifiably
invoked
penalty and
interest as
on date)
(after
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 80 -
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
19. NIRM Unit No. Vide No. D-1219 Amount - No proper
AL 205, dtd 14.12.2021 (in as per document
JAIN MVC 18- submitted
AND 205A and favour of Rs. supporting
ANR 205B, Petitioner) wef 3728038 payment of
V/s (01.04.200 correct
Unity from 01.04.2007
EAST 7 to PTR before
DMC One Mall, to 31.03.2017. 31.03.2017 implementa
&ANR Plot no. After ) as per tion of
W.P.(C MVC 3"- MVC-IIII
)- 29 and implementation of Rs. Willfully&
2865/2 31, CBD MVC 3, Bill for 11972825( consciouso
022 2017-2018 mission to
Shahadar the FY 2017-2018
and 2021- pay
a, Delhi- to 2021-22. 22) Total- property
32. Rs. tax after
15700863( the coming
with into effect
penalty of MVC-III
and Therefore,
interest as power U/s-
on date) 123D
(after justifiably
adjustment invoked
of the paid
amount)
20. 20 Unit No. Vide No. D-804 Amount - No proper
SHREE F-103, dtd 11.12.2020 (in as per document
LAKS submitted
HMI FF, V35 favour of MVC 1st. supporting
ROAD Mall, Plot Petitioner) wef Rs. 766205 payment of
TRAN correct
no. 10, from 01.04.2010 (01.04.2010
SPORT PTR before
CORP Lakshmi to 31.03.2017. to implementa
ORATI Nagar After 31.03.2017) tion of
O N MVC-III
(REGD Distt implementation of as per Willfully&
.) & Centre, MVC 3, Bill for MVC 3" - conscious
ANR. omission to
Delhi- 92. the FY 2017-2018 Rs.
V/s pay
EAST to 2019-20. 1347911 property
DMC (2017-2018 tax after
& ANR the coming
W.P.(C and 2019- into effect
)- 20) Total- of MVC-III
4169/2 Therefore,
Rs.
022 power U/s-
2114116 123D
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 81 -
(with justifiably
penalty and invoked
interest as
on date)
(after
adjustment
of the paid
amount)
B. Demand Notice for the Period MVC-III Only
S.N Case Title Property Prayer/Chall Assessment Demand Notice Remarks
o. Details enge Order period and
details amount
1. RENU Unit No. Quashing Vide No. D- Amount -as per Willfully
AGGARW GF Shop Demand 379 dtd MVC 3″*- Rs. &
AL V/s No. 7-10 Notice dt. 02.08.2021 14,69,053 (from consciou
EAST Unity One 14.09.2021 (in favour 2017-2018 and s
DMC Mall, Plot demanding of 2019-20) (with omission
&ANR no. 29 and Rs. 16,32,311 Petitioner) penalty and to pay
W.P.(C)- 31, CBD including After interest as on property
13222/202 Shahadara, penalty and implementat date) (after tax after
1 Delhi- 32. interest for ion of MVC adjustment of the the
2008- 2020 3, Bill for paid amount) coming
along with the the FY into
condition in 2017-2018 effect of
Demand to 2019-20. MVC-III
Notice for Therefor
non-payment • e, power
UAV factor- U/s-
Rs. 630/-, UF- 123D
6, OF-2 and justifiabl
Category 'A' y
be quashed. • invoked
Property tax
7,55,765.2841
for the years
2008- 2009 to
2021-2022
already
deposited to
be taken as
full and final
payment.
2. NEELAM Unit No. F- Vide No. D- Amount - as per Willfully
JAIN ANR 117, Unity 1366 dtd MVC 3"° - Rs. &
V/s EAST One Mall, 21.12.2021 10,16,099(01.04. consciou
DMC & Plot no. 29 (in favour 2017 to s
ANR and 31, of 31.03.2021) omission
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 82 –
W.P.(C)- CBD Petitioner) (with penalty and to pay
2868/2022 Shahadara, After interest as on property
Delhi- 32. implementat date) (after tax after
ion of MVC adjustment of the the
3, Bill for paid amount) coming
the FY into
2017-2018 effect of
to 2020-21. MVC-III
Therefor
e, power
U/s-
123D
justifiabl
y
invoked
3. SH. G-1-C, Vide No. D- Amount - as per
SUBHAS Cross River 1120, dtd MVC 3d- Rs.
H JAIN Mall, Plot 25.09.2019 596817 (2017-
AND No. 9B and (in favour 2018 and 2018-
ANR. V/S 9C, CBD of 19) (with penalty
EAST Shahadara, Petitioner) and interest as on
DMC & Delhi- 32. wef from date) (after
ANR 01.04.2008 adjustment of the
W.P.(C)- to paid amount)
13912/201 31.03.2017.
9 After
implementat
ion of MVC
3, Bill for
the FY
2017-2018
to 2018-19.
4. RAJNI Unit No. • Quashing Vide No. D- Amount - as per Willfully
CHAWLA GF 12, notification dt. 650 dtd MVC 3d- Rs. &
V/s EAST Unity One 29.03.2016, 05.10.2021 2526090 (2017- consciou
DMC & Mall, Plot 30.06.2018, (in favour 2018 and 2020- s
ANR no. 29 and 11.07.2018, of 21) (with penalty omission
W.P.(C)- 31, CBD 18.06.2019. • Petitioner) and interest as on to pay
2867/2022 Shahadara, Quashing After date) (after property
Delhi- 32. Assessment implementat adjustment of the tax after
Notice dt. ion of MVC paid amount) the
05.10.2021. • 3, Bill for coming
Quashing the FY into
Assessment 2017-2018 effect of
Order dt. to 2020-21. MVC-III
17.03.2020, Therefor
13.09.2021 e, power
and U/s-
16.09.2021 123D
justifiabl
• Quashing y
Demand invoked
Notice dt.
Signature Not Verified 04.01.2022 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
- 83 -
demanding
Rs. 25,26,090
including
penalty and
interest for
2010-2021. •
UAV factor-
Rs. 630/-, UF-
6, OF-2 and
Category 'A'
be quashed. •
Property tax
Rs. 8,89,811,
for the years
2008-2009 to
2021-22-
already
deposited to
be taken as
full and final
payment.
5. VIKAS F-108, 109, • Quashing Assessment NA Demand can No
REALITY 110 /setting aside not done as be raised subject Assessm
SERVICE purchased notification yet Unit to the submission ent
S LLP V/s on dated wise. No of authentic Order as
MCD 15.07.2020 29.03.2016. • documents documents U/s no
W.P.(C)- vide Quashing / provided. 175 of the DMC documen
4051/2023 separate setting aside Act, 1957 by the ts
sale deeds. notification tax payer. furnishe
dated d by the
30.06.2018 Petitione
r.
6. VIKAS F-101 and • Permission Assessment NA Demand can No
PROMOTE 102 area to deposit tax not done as be raised subject Assessm
1040 meter prior to the yet Unit to the submission ent
RS PVT &Sq G- implementatio wise. of authentic Order as
LTD V/s 14,15,21,22 n of MVC-III documents U/s no
,29, report and as 175 of the DMC documen
MCD
32,34,35 per Act, 1957 by the ts
W.P.(C)- and 40A earliercategor tax payer. furnishe
4161/2023 area y - F. d by the
358.79Sq Petitione
meter r
7. VIPUL F-116, • Quashing / Assessment NA No
GARGAN VikasCine setting not doneas Assessm
mall notification yet Unit Demand can be ent
D ANR. dated wise. raisedsubject to Order as
30.06.2018, the submission no
V/s MCD
11.07.2018 of authentic documen
W.P.(C)- documents U/s ts
and
4175/2023 18.06.2019. 175 of the DMC furnishe
Act, 1957 by the d by the
Signature Not Verified SignaturePetitione
Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 84 –
tax payer.. r.
M/S Dilshad Quashing Vide No. Amount - As per -All the
BASANT garden notification 2301 dtd MVC 1*- Rs. propertie
metro dated 08.02.2019 25242029 (from s of
PROJECTS station 30.06.2018, (in favour FY 2012-13 to MRC
LIMITED 11.07.2018, of DMRC) 2016-17) as per under the
18.06.2018. • * Wef from MVC 3°-Rs. jurisdicti
V/s EAST
Quashing 2012-2013 8,92,59,967 on of
DMC & Demand to 2017- Total- Rs. EDMC
ANR notice dated 2018 - After 13,41,10118 are
19.11.2019, implementat (with penalty and assessed
W.P.(C)- demanding a ion of MVC interest as on afresh.
624/2020 sum of Rs. 3, Bill for August 2024)
58,49,526 for the FY (after adjustment
year 2017-19. 2017-2018 of the paid
• UAV factor- and 2018- amount for the
Rs. 630/-, UF- 19 revised. year 2012-13 to
6, OF-2 and 2021-22)
Category 'A'
be quashed. •
Excess
amount of Rs.
19,21,390 paid
be adjusted for
future
demands.
70. Upon a perusal of the aforesaid Chart no.1, it is discernible that
the period of demand notice up to 31.03.2017 is as per MVC-I and the
period commencing from 01.04.2017 up to 31.03.2020 (19-20) is as
per MVC-III. With respect to metro entities, flattened factories and
multiplexes, Chart no.2, Chart no.3 and Chart no.4, respectively, have
been placed on record. In those cases, there is no demand with respect
to earlier years. An argument has been raised that in case of violation
of the provisions under Section 123D of the DMC Act, the
Commissioner is empowered to make suo motu assessment if the case
falls within the category of Section 123D of the DMC Act.
71. It is stated that in the instant cases as well, the self-assessment
return was not filed as per the applicable criteria and the information
furnished in the return was found to be incorrect. A distinction is
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 85 –
sought to be drawn from the case of Ved Marwah36 on the ground that
the said case was related to the NDMC and despite issuance of notice,
the assessment was finalized after over 12 years and therefore, the
same was held to be not permissible. The respondents, therefore,
submit that in the present set of cases, the duty was primarily cast upon
the petitioners to appropriately and timely make the payment, as per
applicable recommendations of the relevant MVC and if the petitioners
have not adhered to the same, Section 123D of the DMC Act
empowers the Commissioner to either make suo motu assessment,
revise any assessment, reopen any assessment or to impose a penalty.
72. The Corporation in its counter-affidavit from paragraph no.38
onwards, while adverting to the aforesaid submissions, has stated that
the petitioners were given the notice and were also afforded personal
hearing. However, neither any of the petitioners appeared nor did they
file any document that the Department proceeded to assess the
property suo motu on the basis of available information for the period
lying between financial years 2008-2009 to 2019-2020. Paragraph
nos.38 to 42 of the said counter-affidavit read as under:-
“38. That, for assessment period FY 2008-09 to FY 2019-20, an
Assessment Notice dated 17.03.2020 under Section 123D of the
DMC Act, 1957 was issued to the petitioner, copy of which is
annexed hereto as ANNEXURE 6. The petitioner was asked to
appear for personal hearing on 23.03.2020 by way of the said
notice dated 17.03.2020. However, neither the petitioner
appeared nor filed any documents. Thus, the department
proceeded to assess the property suo-moto on the basis of
available information for the period, FY 2008-09 to FY 2019-20.
39.That the petitioner failed to appear before EDMC/
Respondent No. 1 and make its case, despite opportunity in this
regard provided to the petitioner vide Assessment Notice dated
17.03.2020. Thus, the Impugned Order was duly passed with
respect to the property of the petitioner by the Assessment and
Collection Department (HQ), EDMC. EDMC/ Respondent No. 136
Signature Not Verified
2018 SCC OnLine Del 8096 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 86 –
then issued a Property Tax Bill under Section 153 of the DMC
Act, 1957, dated 28.09.2021, copy of which is annexed hereto as
ANNEXURE 7. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a letter to
EDMC/ Respondent No. 1 on 05.10.2021 (Page 125 of the
Appeal). EDMC/ Respondent No. 1 sent a response to
petitioner’s letter dated 05.10.2021 vide letter dated 12.10.2021,
copy of which is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE 8. EDMC/
Respondent No. 1 then issued a Demand Notice under Section
154 (1) of the DMC Act, 1957, dated 12.10.2021, copy of which
is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE 9. The petitioner also sent a
letter to EDMC/ Respondent NO.1 on 21.10.2021 (Page 126 of
the Appeal).
40. That subsequently, the petitioner has neither challenged the
said Assessment Notice dated 17.03.2020, nor the associated
Impugned Order dated 28.09.2021 and Demand Notice dated
12.10.2021 before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal (‘MTT’) in
terms of Section 169 and 170 of the DMC Act, 1957. Therefore,
the aforementioned Assessment Notice, Impugned Order and
Demand Notice have attained finality and the petitioner is liable
to make payments towards property tax in terms of the
Impugned Order. Therefore, on this ground also, the present
petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
41. That, for assessment period F.Y. 2020-21, the Impugned
Notice under Section 123D of the DMC Act, 1957 was issued to
the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to appear for personal
hearing on 05.10.2021 by way of the Impugned Notice.
However, neither the petitioner appeared nor filed any
documents. As of now, no Assessment order or Demand notice
has been issued pursuant to the Impugned Notice.
42. That the property tax payable by the petitioner now is as per
the recommendations of MVC-Ill. MVC-III categorically records
that all commercial properties measuring 1500 sq. ft. or more
being treated as ‘Category A’ properties. Further, the property
like that of the petitioner, which is a Shop/Superstore in a Mall,
is treated as big/super/special commercial property. Therefore,
the Unit Area Value (UAV) for the property of the petitioner is
as per the recommendation of MVC-III for the categories of
properties to which the petitioner’s property belongs. The
recommendations of the MVC were adopted after following due
procedure as detailed in the DMC Act, 1957. The EDMC is
bound by the recommendations of the MVC after due procedure
is followed as given in the said Act i.e. declaration and public
notice and consideration of objections/ representations of the
general public by the MVC. As already submitted, MVC is a
statutory body constituted by the Delhi Govt. Therefore, the
categorization, Use Factor, UAV, structure factor, occupancy
factor, etc. are all given by the MVC in terms of its statutory
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 87 –
functions, which are binding on the Municipal Corporation in
terms of Section 1168 (2) of the DMC Act, 1957. Thus, the
various contentions raised by the petitioner in the present
petition, are totally untenable and liable to be rejected.”
73. The petitioners have not specifically controverted the aforesaid
assertions.
74. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to take note of the decision
in the case of Springdales School v. North Delhi Municipal
Corporation and Ors.37 relied upon by the petitioners, wherein, this
Court had passed directions subjecting the exercise of power of
assessment under Section 123D of the DMC Act to various
conditions. The said conditions inter alia includes the assessment
orders should be specific about the deliberate omissions or facts
suppressed by the tax assesses etc. The decision of this Court was
subsequently challenged by the Corporation before the Supreme
Court, which stayed the aforesaid aspect. However, the subject matter
is still sub judice before the Supreme Court. Hence, the Court is of the
opinion that the grievance of the petitioners relating to the re-opening
of the assessment by the Commissioner under Section 123D of the
DMC Act, at this stage, can only be adjudicated appropriately by the
appellate authority. The law laid in the case of Ved Marwah 38, at this
stage, would not benefit the petitioner on account of various
distinguishable features as noted in the foregoing paragraphs No.72
and hence, the Court refrains from rendering any conclusive findings.
75. It be also noted that a consideration of the aforesaid argument,
would necessarily require factual scrutiny of each case as to how the
self-assessment was made by the petitioners and whether, there is any
factual inaccuracy, suppression, or complete non-submission of the
37
2017 SCC OnLine Del 7050
38
Signature Not Verified
2018 SCC OnLine Del 8096 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV
– 88 –
self-assessment itself. In absence of there being complete record
before this Court with respect to each case, it would not be wise to
straight away render any finding. There is already a remedy under
Section 169 of the DMC Act to file an appeal against an order of
assessment. Therefore, in all fairness, the petitioners should avail the
said remedy.
76. The issue with respect to the liability of property tax by DMRC
is already pending adjudication before this Court in writ petition being
W.P. (C) 831/2019 and other connected matters and therefore, any
finding with respect to liability of DMRC would prejudice the rights
and contentions of the parties raised in those writ petitions. However,
the petitioners herein, who are in possession of the area allotted by
DMRC, shall continue to remain liable for payment of property tax.
The same, however, shall be subject to further directions to be passed
in pending writ petitions.
77. With respect to the argument that in one of the cases the area is
less than 1500 sq. ft., the Court takes note of the recommendations of
MVC which do not restrict the applicability of the criteria depending
upon the individual shop area, rather, the same pertains to the total
area of the mall and if it exceeds an area of 1500 sq. ft., the
recommendations of MVC would be attracted, irrespective of the area
of the individual shop. The same argument, thus, stands rejected.
78. The Court, therefore, upholds the categorisation of the
petitioner entities as Super Commercial Properties as a distinct
category for the purposes of taxation. With respect to the issue of re-
opening of assessment as well as alleged retrospective taxation, the
petitioners are at liberty to resort to alternate remedy as remedial
measures discussed hereinabove.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV - 89 -
79. In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petitions stand disposed
of alongwith pending applications.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 11, 2024
p’ma/MJ/dp
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:MAANAS JAJORIA
Signing Date:12.11.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:23:47 KUMAR KAURAV