LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus DELHI URBAN HOUSE OWNERS WELFARE ASSN.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. DELHI URBAN HOUSE OWNERS WELFARE ASSN. OCTOBER 3, 1997 B [S.C. AGRA WAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 : Section 135-Delhi Municipal Corporation (Determination of Rateable C Valuation) Bye-Laws 1994-Explanation to Bye-Law 3(i)(a)-Municipal Tax-Determination of rateable value of land or building assessable to-- Procedure-Provision in the Expln. to Bye-Law 3(i)(a) for determination of the prevalent rent by a Panel of Assessors to be appointed by the Commissioner, held not repugnant to Sec. 135 of Delhi Municipal Corporation D Act and stand to be a valid legislation. Section 131-Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Tax Return) Bye Laws, 1994, Bye-law 8-Penalty for non-famishing of the return-The return required to be filed under the Property Tax Return Bye Laws and the return required to be filed only when the Commissioner requires the same under E Sec. 131 operate in two different fields-The former is a sttJtutory return and penalty for non-furnishing of the same is held to be a valid legislation. The High Court struck down the provision of Explanation to Bye-Law 3(i)(a), Bye-Law 3(i)(c)(ii), Bye-Law 3(i)(e) of Delhi Municipal Corporation F (Determination of Rateable Valuation) Bye-Laws, 1994 and Bye Law 8 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Tax Return) Bye Laws, 1994 in a Writ Petition on the ground that the aforesaid Bye-Laws are in contravention of Section 135 and 131 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 respectively. The appellant filed this appeal by way of Special Leave challenging the legality of the judgment but restricting the challenge only to the declaration of G invalidity ofExplanation to Bye-Law 3(i)(a), of the R. V. Bye-Laws and Bye Law 8 of the Property Tax Return Bye Laws. So, the Judgment of the High Court declaring the provision of the Bye Laws 3(i)(c)(ii), Bye-Law 3(i)(e) of the R. V. Bye-Liiws as invalid remain unaltered. H Allowing the appeal, the Court 418 0 M.C.D. v. DELHI URBAN HOUSE OWNERS WELFARE ASSN. 419 HELD : 1.1. No bye-law can be framed which would be contrary to the A provision of the Act. The R. V. Bye-laws relate to taxation and its Bye-Law 3 prescribes the procedure for determination of the annual rent for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 116 of the Act. The Explanation to Bye-Law 3 (i}(a} provides that the prevalent rent shall be determined by a panel of Assessors to be appointed by the Commissioner and such panel should include B a representative of the Government, a representative of the Taxation Department or a valuer and a representative of the property-owner of the zone of which the prevalent rent are to be determined. The bye-law, therefore, is essentially a safeguard provided for tl.e property-owners and the determination thus made by a Panel of Assessors will be a safeguard for the Commissioner to exercise his ultimate power, so that, the exercise of such power cannot be C said to be arbitrary or excessive. So, the Explanation cannot be said to be repugnant to the independent application of mind of the Commissioner under the Act. (421-G-H; 422-A-B] 1.2. Section 135 is an enabling power of the Commissioner to appoint one or more competent persons to give advice or assistance in connection D with the valuation of any land or building. The bye-law in question together with the Explanation merely stlltes as to how the persons could be appointed to advise the Commissioner in connection with the valuation of any land or building and there is nothing in that Explanation which ca~ be said to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 135 of the Act. Thus it is a valid legislation. (422-DJ E 2. Under Section 131 the owner or occupier of any land or building is required to file return or information only when the Commissioner requires the same from him. In the Property Tax Return Bye-Laws, however, filing of an annual property tax return by the owner or occupier ofland or building is obligatory irrespective of whether the Commissioner requires the same or F not. The liability to file the return arises under the bye-laws, if the land or building is assessable to property tax. Bye-law 8 provides penalty for non- furnishing of the same. It is in the nature of a statutory return required to be filed by owner or occupier annually when the conditions mentioned in the bye- law are attracted, whereas, the former makes it obligator
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.