Ansal Housing Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

1. The appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by a common order dated LPA 529/2019 di connected matter P'lge 1 of[4],•-1 A / (c 16.05.2019,passed by the learned Single.Judge disposing oftwo separate writpethionsfiled byitinrespeetoftwoseparatesetsofpropertiespraying inter aha for quashing the demand notices issued bythe respondent/SDMC towards propertytax for the AssessmentYears2004-05 to 2018-19.Bythe impugned order,the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petitions and observed that the appellant/petitioner ought to approach the Munieipal Tax Tribunal(MTT)for appropriate relief

2. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/petitioner states that this is the second round oflitigation 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 Older dated 18.12.2014 in respeet 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 learned 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 learned 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 case LPA 529/2019 <£ connected matter page2of[4] Vi ■¥k i It is submitted before ik thcf i r- ' ® order dated 17 03 2017 rr:rfT™r 03.03.2017, pa..,ed by ft. learned Single Jndge the jpe lant/pefttone..had deposited ntuch „,„to fta„ the atnennl liable ft be post e towaids the ba,ftyeartax detnandraised bythere.spoitdent/SDMC J Pft^uaftthereto, the appellant/petittonerhad tiled an appeal before the baehto7'r""' aek ft fte A,s,sess.ng Authority for ntalcing a fresh a,ssess.ne.tt. It i,s stated mi on recetvtng fte tnatter on remand, the Assess,ng Authority has passed fresh assess.nent orders both dated 08.03.2019 re.terating ftftr alia the eathe, assessment orders. Aggrieved thereby, the appellanripetitioner had mod two wntpetitions in the H.gh Court, which have been disposed ofby the nnpugned order, 'nte limitedgrievance ofthe appellanriperitioner.s that Wule ftsposmg offte writ petit,ons, fte learned Single Judge did not give leave to the appellant/petitioner to file the appeals for adjudication by the ' MTT, wtftoul depositing any ftrther tax, as demanded by the respoudent/S.DMC.

4. On enquiiing fiom Mr. Peechara, learned' counsel for the respondent/SDMC as to whetherthe SDMC has retained fte tax forthe base year as was directed to be deposited by fte appellant/petitioner in terns of fte order dated 17.03.2017, passed by fte Division Bench in LPAs No.189/2017 and 191/2017, learned counsel states on instructions that as LPA 529/2019 ct connected matter jjoge 3 of[4] g.".JA 529/2019.the.-espottden^SDMCha.feoetved a.untofRs30 « front the appenattt/petitione, which haa been retained, but the tax payable for the baae year LPA 530/20,9. eontea to Rs.t0.69.770/wleteastheappellant/petitionerhad depositedasum ofRs.10lacs.

5. Mr. Dmta. learned Senior Advocate appearing for the wollant/petitionerstatesthatthe appellant/petittonerundertakesto depos.t tte drfferenee nr thepropertytax payableforthebase year2004-05 within one week frotn today. He finther states on instructions that appellant/petttioner shall not seek relhnd ofthe excess amount deposited towards property tax in LPA 529/2019,t.ll the appeals proposed to befiled before MTT are decided.

6. Immediately upon the appellant/petitioner depositing the shortfall of Rs.69,770/-withtherespondent/SDMC.theappealsproposedto befiledby ItbeforetheMTT.shallbeentertained and decidedinaccordancewithlaw.

7. 1heappealsaredisposed ofalongwith allthe pendingapplications on the above terms. conij,j OCTOBER 10,2019/MK MENON, LPA 529/20J[9] cG connedad matier i ^-i n[3] ff Tir/'j.f-.,, i tL JLh(,J Y I '*of[4] EXAJgi H, « T- O BD O C