ANSAL HOUSING LTD v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

1. The appellant/petitioner is aggrieved byacommon order dated 2019:DHC:7555-DB 16.05.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of two separate writ petitions filed by it in respect oftwo separate sets ofproperties praying inter alia for quashing the demand notices issued by the respondent/SDMC towards property tax for the Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2018-19. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petitions and observed that the appellant/petitioner ought to approach the Municipal Tax Tribunal(MTT)for appropriate relief.

2. Mr. Dutta, leamed Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/petitioner states that this is the second round of litigation that the appellant/petitioner have had to initiate in respect of the property tax Assessment Orders and consequential demands raised by the respondent/SDMC. Earlier hereto, the respondent/SDMC had passed an Assessment Order dated 18.12.2014 in respect of the subject properties followed by a demand raised on the appellant/petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/petitioner had filed two separate writ petitions [W.P.(C) 2982/2015 and W.P.(C)2990/2015], which were disposed ofby the leamed Single Judge with a direction that upon depositing 50% of the demanded amount, the appellant/petitioner would be permitted to file appeals and appear before the MTT for adjudication. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/petitioner had preferred intra-court appeals registered as LPA No.189/2017 and LPA No.191/2017. Vide order dated 17.03.2017, the Division Bench had modified the order dated 03.03.2017, passed by the leamed Single Judge in the captioned writ petitions by observing that the appellant could be permitted to prefer appeals on depositing the tax demanded for the base year,as was held by a co-ordinate Bench in the ease LPA 529/2019& connected matter page2of[4] !> of Springdales School v. North Municipal Corporation and Another (W.P.(C)6417/2015 decided on 08.02.2017).

3. It is submitted before us that even before the order dated 17.03.2017 came to be passed by the Division Bench in the captioned appeals modifying the order dated 03.03.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/petitioner had deposited much more than the amount liable to be deposited towards the base year tax demand raised by the respondent/SDMC and pursuant thereto, the appellant/petitioner had filed an appeal before the MTT. Vide order dated 21.12.2018, the MTT had remanded the matters back to the Assessing Authority for making a fresh assessment. It is stated that on receiving the matter on remand,the Assessing Authority has passed fresh assessment orders both dated 08.03.2019 reiterating inter alia the earlier assessment orders. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/petitioner had filed two writ petitions in the High Court, which have been disposed ofby the impugned order. The limited grievance ofthe appellant/petitioner is that while disposing ofthe writ petitions, the learned Single Judge did not give leave to the appellant/petitioner to file the appeals for adjudication by the MTT, without depositing any further tax, as demanded by the respondent/SDMC.

4. On enquiring from Mr. Peeehara, learned counsel for the respondent/SDMC as to whether the SDMC has retained the tax for the base year as was directed to be deposited by the appellant/petitioner in terms of the order dated 17.03.2017, passed by the Division Bench in LPAs No.189/2017 and 191/2017,leamed counsel states on instructions that as LPA 529/2019& connected matter page3of[4] regards LPA 529/2019,the rcspondent/SDMC has received a sum ofRs.30 laes from the appellant/petitioner, which has been retained, but the tax payable for the base year in LPA 530/2019, comes to Rs.10,69,770/whereas the appellant/petitioner had deposited asum ofRs.lO laes.

5. Mr. Dutta, leamed Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/petitioner states that the appellant/petitioner undertakes to deposit the difference in the property tax payable for the base year 2004-05,within one week from today. He further states on instructions that appellant/petitioner shall not seek refund of the excess amount deposited towards property tax in LPA 529/2019,till the appeals proposed to be filed before MTT are decided.

6. Immediately upon the appellant/petitioner depositing the shortfall of Rs.69,770/- with the respondent/SDMC,the appeals proposed to be filed by it before the MTT,shall be entertained and decided in accordance with law.

7. The appeals are disposed ofalongwith all the pending applications on the above terms. ^ HIMA KOHLI,J ASHA MENON,J OCTOBER 10,2019/MK LPA 529/2019& connected matter