LexM.C.D. & ANR. versus M/S. MEHRASONS JEWELLERS (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c (2015] 8 S.C.R. 944 M.C.D. & ANR. v. MIS. MEHRASONS JEWELLERS (P) LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 6718 OF 2004) AUGUST 11, 2015 [A. K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: s. 116- Determination of ratable value of lands and buildings assessable to properly taxes -Assessment years post 1994 - Municipal Corporation framing its own Bye-Laws of 1994 whereby Delhi Municipal Corporation took upon itself D determination of ratable value of lands and buildings according to the principles laid down therein - Determination of annual value - Held: Assessments made after the 1994 bye-laws came into existence, would be governed by these bye- laws alone and the principles laid down in the two E Supreme Courl judgments-Balbir Singh's case and P.R. Chaudhary's case, would no longer apply since they were applied in a situation where MCD did not itself lay down how annual value was to be determined - Delhi Municipal Corporation (Determination of Ratable Value) Bye-Laws, F 1994. ss. 169, 116G - Determination of annual value of covered space of building and of vacant land -Assessment years prior to 2003 - By 2003 amendment tax regime G replaced by ss. 123A and 123B by self assessment procedure based on unit area method - Pending appeals on the date of 2003 amendments to be decided in accordance.with the old substantive law or the new procedure - Held: An assessment that has not been finalized in all cases H where an appeal is pending before the District Judge as also 944 M.C.D. & ANR. v. M/S. MEHRASONS JEWELLERS (P) 945_ · LTD. in all cases which have not become ''final" and after 2003 are A remanded back for fresh determination, in respect of an assessment of property tax prior to 2003, would all_be covered by the language of s. 116G(2)- Thus, even at an appellate stage, an assessee is empowered to ask for a decision on the basis of the annual value of the property. B ·Disposing of the appeals, the Court_ i ,.. HELD: 1.1 Having regard to the statement of law that where the premises are not controlled by any rent c control legislation, the annual rent can be taken as the annual rateable value of the property for the assessment · of property tax, the municipal corporation 'is entitled to revise the rateable value of the properties which have been freed from rent control on the basis of annual rent D actually received, unless the owner satisfies the municipal corporation that there are other considerations which have affected the quantum of rent, the Division Bench ofthe High Court in *Daruwala's case is not correctly decided for the simple reason that this E appeal falls within the exception created by the Central Bank judgment, namely, cases where the Municipal Corporation of a particular State itself lays down as to how annual value is to be determined. Therefore, for assessments made after the 1994 bye-laws came into F existence, such assessments shall be g.overned by these . • bye-laws alone and the principles laid down in **Balbir Singh's case and ***P.R. Chaudhary's case, would have no relevance in such a situation. [Paras ~3,14] (962-G- H; 963-B-D] G . 2.1 The holding by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in ****Major General lnderpal Singh Kahai's case is that it is clear from the third proviso to Section 169(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 that H 946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A even where an assessment is finalized, but an appeal is pending, an assessee is entitled to ask for a decision in the appeal on the annual value basis. In other words, even at an appellate stage, an assessee is empowered to ask for a decision on the basis of the annual value of B the property, is the correct view of the law.[Para 21] (974- F-H; 975-A] 2.2 Under Section 169 3rd proviso, appeals that are pending before the Court of the District Judge are to C be transferred to the Municipal Taxation Tribunal to be set up under the 2003 Amendment for disposal, if requested by the applicant, for the settlement thereof on the basis of annual value. This proviso means that an appeal pending before a District Judge is to be D transferred compulsorily to the Taxation Tribunal (after it is set up) if an applicant requests for disposal of the appeal on the basis of annual value. Obviously, the word "settlement" would not in this context means a consensual arrangement between both parties but E would only mean
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.