Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

1. In WP(C)1305/2014, the petitioner impugns an order dated 06.02.2014 passed by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal (hereafter the 'Tribunal') in HTA No. 188/MTT/2013 titled as Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. SDMC, whereby the Tribunal had directed the petitioner to file separate appeals for each assessment year. The petitioner had filed the abovementioned appeal against an assessment order 2015:DHC:11563 02.09.2013, whereby it was held that use factor of 4 was applicable in respect ofcertain flats situated atAsian Games Village, Siri Fort Road. And, as the petitioner had paid taxes by applying the use factor of[1], the petitioner was held liable to pay the difference. A calculation sheet appended along with the said assessment order indicated the amount payable in respect of nine assessment years; 2004-05 to 2013-2014. -''1^

2. In WP(C) 4440/2014, the petitioner impugns an order dated^. 11.06.2014 passed by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal in HTA NO. 70/MTT/2013 titled as Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. SDMC. The petitioner had filed the abovementioned appeal against an assessment order 17.12.2013, inter alia holding that the petitioner was also liable to include the area of the basement for calculation of property tax payable in respect of property bearing the address August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The petitioner was held liable to pay the difference. A calculation sheet appended along with the said assessmeii^ order indicated the amount payable in respect of nine assessment years; 2004-05 to 2013-2014. Subsequently, by a letter dated 18.12.2012, the petitioner was called upon to pay ^7,66,75,086/- on account ofadditionalfex calculated for the period 2004-05 to 2012-13. The aforesaid demand was revised to ?6,03,62,882/- by a letter dated 09.01.2013.

3. By the impugned orders dated 06.02.2104 and 11.06.2014, the Tribunal had directed the petitioner to file separate appeals for eachyear.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the notices as r well as the assessment orders impugned before the Tribunals were composite, consolidated appeals were filed against the assessment orders. He further contends that the grounds for challenge for all the assessment years are the same and, therefore, the Tribunal had erred in directing that separate appeals be filed. He also submitted that there was no dispute with regard to the pre-condition of deposit of tax as the requisite amount in respect of the entire demand as raised under the consolidated assessment orders were subject to pre-deposit. The petitioner had impugned the assessment order dated 17.12.2012 and the demands raised in respect of the property situated at Bhikaji Cama Place in WP(C) 1800/2013. The petitioner had, in terms of the order dated 22.03.2103 passed in that petition, deposited a sum of^50,00,000/- as a precondition for adjudication of appeal before the Tribunal. In the circumstances the condition of pre-deposit of tax for the additional demand raised with respect to the period of nine years had been met.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent states that post the year 2004 each year is a separate assessment in respect of which separate assessment is framed. Merely because a consolidated assessment has been made and a common orders has been passed in respect of all the assessment years, it would not absolve the petitioner from challenging the same by way of separate appeals. She is, however, agreeable that instead of multiplying the number of paper books, if separate numbers could be assigned for each assessment year and separate court fee could be given in respect of the each appeal, the appeals could be heard by the Tribunal on the paper book of the consolidated appeal already filed. Thus, although, the appeal for each year would be identifiable by a separate number, the same would be argued and ^0 dealt with on the basis ofthe appeal already filed.

6. It is well settled that the manner in which appeals are filed is a procedural matter; since the Tribunal was of the view that separate appeals need be filed for each assessment year, the said condition would be satisfied if separate court fee ispaid and separate numbers are assigned to appeal^in respect of different assessment years, albeit, on the paper book of the consolidated appeal.

7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the present petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioner would pay the requisite court fee in respect of each assessment year separately. On the petitioner doing so, the Registry of the Tribunal shall assign separate appeal numbers for appeals in respect of each assessment year and the consolidated appeal filed shall, accordingly, carry multiple numbers. The appeals shall be heardon the bas^ of the consolidated appeal treating the same as nine separate appeals. Pending application also stands disposed of No order as to costs. VIBHUBAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 04,2015 pkv