JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.
(1) Time teaches wisdom and expense makes wiser. ‘Lump Sum Payment Scheme’ or ‘One-Time Payment for Life of Property Tax – Scheme’ introduced by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi might have earned substantial revenue in the coffers of the Corporation but the peace supposed to have been purchased by the tax payers has certainly not lasted for life as is apparent from the few dockets collected in the archives of this Court. The. cause may be either a confusion created by the Corporation or greed or over-zealousness on the part of the tax payers, the fact remains that the Corporation itself has abandoned the scheme and now a judicial pronouncement must put an end to the controversies left surviving by the ghost of the scheme though the scheme itself docs not now survive.
(2) This judgment proposes to dispose of Cwp Nos.997/95, 4895/94, 2878/95, 3967/94, 3543/94, 30/96, 4317/94, 743/95, 1996/94, 2768/95, 2599/95, 3075/95, 2598/95, 3965/94, 166/96. We would first place on record common and undisputed facts and features relevant. Thereafter we would set out the necessary facts of individual cases and construct the relief to suit the requirements of individual cases.
(3) While determining rates for the. year 1986-87 of the taxes to be levied w.e.f. 1.4.86, the Corporation passed a resolution on 10th February, 1986 as required under bye-law 6 of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Taxation & Misc. Provisions) Bye-laws, 1959. The resolution inter alia provided as under :- "ALLproperties, where an amount equal to ten times the amount of property taxes and Education Cess payable for the year 1986-87 within the time allowed in the Bill is paid in not more than Four installments before 31.3.1987 shall be exempted from payments of Property Taxes and Education Cess with effect from 1.4.1986 on the Rateable Value of 1986-87 for all time to come provided there is no demand outstanding for the period ending 31.3.1986 or the same is also paid before or alongwith such amount. Further increase in the Rateable Value of such properties subsequently shall also qualify for similar exemption on making similar payment within the financial year in which exemption is sought." (4) The resolution was given a wide publicity. It was incorporated in Property Tax Guide released by the Corporation. Pamphlets were issued and advertisements inserted in the newspapers entitled "Good News for Property Tax Payers". News items were also published. The lax payers were persuaded to take advantage of the Scheme and make payment of tax and earn exemption for all times, also save themselves from the cumbersome process of assessment and payment recurring year by year.
(5) On 18.2.89, the Corporation issued departmental instruction No.6/89 which reads as under :- Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (ASSESSMENT And Collector DEPARTMENT) S.P.MUKERJEE Marg, OPP.DELHI Rly STN., Delhi -110 006. No.A&0(PO)/HQ/PA(B)/89/ll/72/124 Dated:18.2.1989. Departmental Instruction N0.6/89 Sub : Lumpsum Payment Scheme-Clarification Regarding This is in continuation of the Departmental Instruction No.-25/88 dated 01.11.1988. As and when a request for payment of tax under this Scheme is received, the Joint Assessor and Collector or his nominee in the Special Assessment Unit and Deputy A&Cs. in the head quarters or the Zones should collect the concerned file and see that, if any, I.D. action is pending, the same – is taken and balance of payable is reported to the tax-payer. If a proposal Under Section 126 is pending the tax payer may be informed of the tendency of the proposal and he may be informed that as and when the rateable value increases on the disposal of the 126 proposal or on the decision of any appeal/writ petition filed by the Department, he will have an option to pay the property taxes in lumpsum on the increase in rateable value. Similarly, if there is any increase in the rateable value hereinafter he will have an option to pay the 10 years tax on the difference in the rateable value or pay the taxes on year to year basis. The rateable value on which the tax payer shall not be required to pay the taxes in future should also be intimated. 2. The payment should be accepted only after written orders of the Jt. A&C or his nominee/Dy.A&COs. and not in the routine way at the counters. This should be ensured that G-8 receipts are properly issues i.e. one receipt for the tax for 1988/89 and the other for nine years in advance in “SPECIAL Capital Reserve FUND”. 3. On the G-8 receipts to be issued, the following rubber stamp should be affixed :-
“THISPAYMENT Has Been Made By The Tax Payer On Rateable Value Of Rs._________. If This Rateable Value Increases Due To ANY’ Reason Including The Amendment In The Act The Tax Payer Shall Be Liable To Pay The Difference Of The Tax On The Rateable Value So Fixed And The Rateable Value On Which The Tax Is Being PAID.”
4. Ail the properties in which the 10 years payment have been received during the current financial year i.e. 01.04.1988 and onwards, should be inspected and if they need any revision in the rateable values, the same should be revised and notices served before 31st of March, 1989. (V.C.CHATURVEDI) Assessor And COLLECTOR.”
(6) Resolutions similar to the one passed for the year 1986-87 were passed for successive 5 years each. However, in the year 1991, the Corporation has discontinued the scheme.
(7) In the year 1988 an important event took place. Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act No.57 of 1988) was passed whereby Section 3 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1950 was amended. The amendment took out from the purview of the Act any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.3500.00 and any premises constructed on or after the commencement of Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 for a period of 12 years from the date of completion of such construction. The date of commencement of Amendment Act, 1988 was appointed as 1st December, 1988.
(8) Several properties with reference to which the owners had taken benefit under the Lumpsum Payment Scheme were now sought to be reassessed by the Corporation. The rateable value of such properties was assessed by the Assessing Authorities of the Corporation either on the cost basis or by taking into consideration the standard rent (notional or fixed) of the premises. As the premises became exempt from the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the concept of standard rent ceased to have any relevance for such premises. The Corporation initiated steps for reassessing the rateable value of all such premises.
(9) There are a good number of cases where there have been additions or material alterations in the premises. Additional space has been added to the previously existing premises. There arc cases where the tenants have changed; the new tenants having been inducted on a higher rate of rent. In such cases too the Corporation has proceeded to reassess and revise the rateable value.
(10) The case of the petitioners is that the property having been assessed to tax and the owner having made the lumpsum payment under the Scheme devised by the Corporation, the same property cannot once again be reassessed and additional liability imposed and enforced against the owner.
(11) According to the respondent-corporation the Scheme formulated is referable to Section 177 to Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. What the scheme exempts for future is the rateable value and not the property itself. If the rateable value increases, the exemption shall be confined to the rateable value on which the tax has been collected. The scheme does not preclude the Corporation from enhancing the rateable value consequent to a change in law or otherwise such as on account of additions in the properly or change in user thereof, which factors have the effect of enhancing the rateable value of I the properly, The variables responsible for such enhancement may be man made or made by legislation. The scheme has since been discontinued and is no more in existence w.e.f. the assess me year 1991-92 and onwards.
(12) Having noticed the respective contentions of the parties, we may now proceed to examine the relevant provisions of law. Section 114 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Aci. .1957 provides for property taxes to be levied on lands and buildings on Delhi including a general tax of not less than ten and not more than thirty per cent of the rateable value of lands and buildings within the urban areas, on lands and buildings within the rural areas at such lower rates and on land and building or portions thereof in trade or business area at such higher rate. as may be determined by the Corporation. Tax may be levied on a graduated scale. The Corporation shall fix the rate of the general tax during an year or year to year. 12.2 Section 124 lays down a detailed procedure for the preparation of an assessment list. Whenever an assessment list is prepared for the first lime, public notice and individual notices are required to be given inviting objections. Rateable values of lands and buildings are one of the items required to be entered into assessment list. Any objection to a rateable value or any other matter as entered in the assessment list has to be preferred in writing and has to be heard and disposed of by the Commissioner. On finalisation of the objections the assessment list has to be authenticated by the signatures of the Commissioner or the officer authorised. The entries in the assessment list then achieve a finality under Section 125 and arc to be accepted as conclusive evidence of the rateable value for the purpose of assessing tax. 12.3 Sections 126 and 127 of the Act contemplate amendments of assessment list and preparation of new assessment list. These provisions read as under :- 126. Amendment of Assessment list (1) The Commissioner may, at any time, amend the assessment list (a) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to he inserted; or (b) by inserting therein any land or building previously omitted; or (c) by striking out the name of any person not liable for the payment of property taxes; or (d) by increasing or reducing for adequate reasons the amount of any rateable value and of the assessment thereupon; or (e) by making or cancelling any entry exempting any land or building from liability to any property tax; or (r) by altering the assessment on the land or building which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, mistake or accident; or (g) by inserting or altering an entry in respect of any building erected, reerected, altered or added to, after the preparation of the assessment list: Provided that no person shall by reason of any such amendment become liable to pay any tax or increase of tax in respect of any period prior to the. commencement of the year [in which the notice under sub-section (2) is given]. (2) Before making any amendment under sub-Section (1) the Commissioner shall give to any person affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month that he proposes to make the amendment and consider any objections which may be made by such person. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) and sub-Section (2) before making any amendment to the assessment list for the years commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the 1st day of April, 1989 and the Lst day of April, 1990 under sub-section (1), the Commissioner shall give to any person affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month at any time before the 1st day of April 1992, that he proposes to make to make the amendment and consider any objections which may be made by such person. (4) No amendment under sub-section (1) shall be made in the assessment list in relation to – (a) any year prior to the year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988 after the 31st day of March, 1991; (b) the year commencing on the 1st day of Aprii) 988, or any other year thereafter, after the expiry of three years from the end of the year in which the notice is given under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to a case where the Commissioner has to ahead the assessment list in consequence of or to give effect to any direction or order of any court. Explanation : In computing the period referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) any period or periods during which the proceedings for the assessment were, held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court, or the period of any delay attributable to the person to whom the notice has been given under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the ca.se may be, shall be excluded.] 127. Preparation of new assessment list It shall be in the discretion of the Commissioner to prepare for the whole or any part of Delhi a new assessment list every year or to adopt the rateable values contained in the list for any year, with such alterations as may in particular cases be deemed necessary, as the rateable values for the year following, giving the same public notice as well as individual notices, to persons affected by such alterations, of the rateable values as if a new assessment list had been prepared.
(13) Out of the 7 items forming subject matter of amendment in the assessment list within the meaning of Sub-Section (1) of Section 126 it is noteworthy that the amendments contemplated by clauses (b). (d), (f) & (g) are such amendments as may affect the rateable value of the land or building while the amendments contemplated by clauses (a), (c) & (e) would not affect the rateable value but only the liability for payment of or incidence of tax.
(14) Section 177 confers general power of exemption on the Corporation. It reads as under :- 177. General power of exemption The Corporation may, by resolution passed in this behalf, exempt either wholly or in part from the payment of any tax levied under this Act, any class of persons or any class of property or goods. 14.1 This provision confers a. very wide and general power of exemption on the Corporation. Any class of persons or any class of property or goods can be exempted cither in whole or in part from payment of any tax levied under the Act provided that a resolution may be passed in that regard. In the context of property tax, the exemption may be by reference to class of persons or class of property. For example the Corporation may resolve to exempt widows, minors, freedom fighters etc. from payment of property tax, if the liability to pay the tax may fall on them. This will be an exemption by reference to class of persons. An illustration of exemption by reference to class of property is provided by Section 115(4) of the Act itself. While exercising power to exempt from payment of tax only in part, person or property may be exempted by dieseling the liability for payment of tax by reference to the rateable value. In other words, the rateable value of any property may be exempted from payment of tax either wholly or in part and such a power of exemption would be covered by Section 177 of the Act. 14.2 While formulating Lumpsum Payment of Tax Scheme, the Corporation has exercised the power of exemption under Section 177 of the Act by exempting a particular rateable value from payment of tax. The Corporation has resolved that so much rateable value of the property on which an amount equal to ten times the amount of property tax by reference to a particular year of assessment has been paid then that rateable value shall be exempted from payment of tax for all times to come. The exemption is thus confined to the rateable value of the property assessed by reference to any particular year of assessment by reference to which the exemption is claimed or granted. 14.3 Such a mode of exemption from payment of tax would be legal, valid and constitutional. In Ralla Ram VS. The Province of East Punjab their Lordships have held that a tax on annual value of the property remains a tax on property and does not become a tax on income. In Sudhir Chander Nawn Vs. Wealth Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors., adopting the capital value of land and buildings for determining the incidence of tax has been held to be a sustainable mode for levying tax under Entry 49, List-11 of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. In R.R.Engineering Co. VS. Zitu Parishad Bareily, vide pr.l6, their Lordships have held the measure of tax is not true test of nature of tax. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, Section 114 levies tax on land and buildings at a certain percentage of rateable value thereof. Power to exempt under Section 177 can therefore be exercised by exempting a part or portion of rateable value from payment of tax. 14.4 The Corporation has nowhere and never resolved to exempt any property itself or any person himself from payment of tax for all times to come if that property or person has at a given point of time taken benefit of the lumpsum payment scheme. To put it in different words, the exemption contemplated by Section 177 is from payment of any tax and not from levy of lax or revision of the basis of assessment or assessment list. 14.5 If the lump sum payment of lax scheme framed under Section 177 were to be read in the manner suggested on behalf of the petitioners then the provisions of Section 126 of the Act contemplating amendment in assessment list would go otiose to a large extent. Once a land or building was assessed to tax and benefit of lumpsum payment scheme was taken in respect thereof then even in cases of any omission or error, even fraud, mistake or accident, or increase or reduction in the rateable value, the rateable value of the building would not be available for being touched by the Corporation for revision. That would lead to. an absurdity. 14.6 The scheme read reasonably and as a whole contemplates exemption for life from payment of tax being valid, binding and effective so long as the rateable value remains unaltered. If the rateable value itself undergoes a change due to impact of any variable – man made or otherwise – the power of Municipal Corporation to amend the assessment list under Section 126 of the Act and change the rateable value so as to bring it in conformity with the existing state of affairs is not taken away. The rateable value may be increased or reduced. A new assessment list may be prepared. This shall have to confirm to the requirements of Sections 126 and 127 of the Act. The rateable value would undergo a change still so much of the rateable value calculated in terms of money as has been subjected to lump-sum payment of tax shall continue to enjoy the benefit of exemption. An indication thereof is to be found in the resolution itself which speaks of further increase in rateable value of such properties subsequently also qualifying for similar exemption on making similar payment within the financial year in which exemption is sought for.
(15) The learned counsel for the respondent has very rightly placed reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Novopan SOfar . Hyderabad VS. Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Hyderabad), 1994 Supp (3) Scc 606, it has been held :- "The principle that in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should he construed in favour of the assessee - assuming that the said principle is good and sound - does not apply to the construction of an exception or an exempting provision; they have to be construed strictly. A person invoking an exception or an exemption provision to relieve him of the tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provision. In case of doubt or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State." 15.1 Whatever might have been the publicity made and the news items issued on behalf of the Municipal Corporation we have to read the resolution enunciating the lump-sum payment of tax scheme and construe it in accordance with the settled canons of interpretation. In Bengal Iron Corporation & Anr. VS. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors., 1994 Supp. (1)SCC 310, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held :- "So far as clarifications/circulars issued by the Central government and/or State Government arc concerned, they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the courts. It is true that those clarifications and circulars were communicated to the concerned dealers but even so nothing prevents the State from recovering the tax, if in truth such tax was leviable according to law. There can be no estoppel against the statute. The understanding of the Government, whether in favour or against the assessee, is nothing more than its understanding and opinion. It is doubtful whether such clarifications and circulars bind the quasi-judicial functioning of the authorities under the Act. While acting in quasi-judicial capacity, they are bound by law and not by any administrative instructions, opinions, clarifications or circulars. Law is what is declared by this Court and the High Court - to wit, it is for this Court and the High Court to declare what does a particular provision of statute say, and not for the executive. Of course, the Parliament/Legislature never speaks or explains what docs a provision enacted by it mean. (See Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. VS. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.) 15.2 In Hind Plastics & Am. VS. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Anr., , their lordships have held :- ".......EVERYinstrument, statutory or otherwise, has to be so interpreted as to accord with the intention of its maker having regard to the language used. True, one cannot, ignore the actual words used and go alter the supposed intention of the maker.......since that would amount to entering the arena of speculation but all the same the principle is unexceptionable that whether it is statute, statutory instrument or a.n ordinary instrument, the interpretation placed has to accord with the intention of the maker as evidenced by the words/language used. 15.3 So is the view taken in Syed Hasan Rasul Numa & ors. VS. Union of India & Ors., :- "In matters of Interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to the other words. No provision in the statute and no word in the section may be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used." (16) We are very clear in our mind that the Scheme conferred exemption from payment of tax on rateable value (for the time being) and not on person or property (as such or as an unit of exemption).
(17) The above said discussion leads to the following conclusions :- (i) The rateable value of any property having been assessed and the rateable value so assessed having become subject matter of lump sum payment scheme, cannot be subjected to tax so long as the rateable value cannot be subjected to amendment by reference to the power exercisable by the Corporation under Section 126 or 127 of the Act. (ii) In case of increase in the rateable value of the properly on account of any of the factors contemplated by Clauses (b),(d), (f) & (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the Act, the Corporation may revise the rateable value of the property though it has been subject matter of lump sum payment scheme at any earlier point of time. In respect of the added or enhanced rateable value the liability for payment of tax may be met either year by year or exemption for life from payment of tax even on such added or enhanced rateable value may be claimed by availing benefit of lump sum payment scheme under which benefit has already been availed for the unaltered part of the rateable value. Such an exemption may be claimed though the variable contributing to the increase in rateable value has come into existence at a point of time and in a year of assessment by which the lump sum payment scheme has ceased to exist. This will be because of the phraseology used in the Scheme as originally framed contemplating benefit of lumpsum payment scheme being extended to further increase in rateable value of such properties subsequently also. The above said construction also accords with the stand taken by the learned Senior Advocate Mr.V.P.Singh, appearing for the Corporation,
(18) Placing reliance on M/s.Motilal Padampal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. VS. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ; Centaury Spinning & Manufacturing Co.Ud. & Anr. VS. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council &Anr” ; The. Union of India & Ors. VS. Mis. Angle Afghan Agencies etc., Air 1968 Sc 718; Collector of Bombay VS. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay & Ors. Air (38) 1951 469 it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-MCD is estopped from going back on its representation and it cannot be permitted to recover tax from the persons or on the properties, once benefit of exemption from payment of tax was extended to any of them under the lump sum payment of tax scheme. The contention has to be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, we do not find either in the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation or in the bye-laws or in the publicity made by the Municipal Corporation in the newspapers, anywhere any statement made or representation held out by Mod that any person or property forming subject matter of lump sum payment of tax scheme shall be exempted from payment of tax for all limes to come. The exemption is confined to the rateable value forming subject mailer of the scheme. Secondly, we have examined the relevant provisions of the Act and found the power to tax and power to exempt all statutorily provided and defined. If some one has made some statement holding out an exemption which goes beyond what the scheme of exemption contemplated, it cannot bind the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 18.1 In Brig.S. C.L.Malik A Vsm (Retd.) VS. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. 1996 (1) Ad Delhi 644, the Division Bench has held while repelling a similar arguments :- Assuming for the sake of argument that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi at any time made some announcement or published a pamphlet for general information of the public and it contains some statement which may be at variance with the law, it is the law which will prevail and not any statement made by any official of the MCD. In any case, we have in our judgment dealt with the law and the law has to prevail. No statement made contrary to law can attract the applicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel.” 18.2 In A Nz Grindlay Bank Pie. VS. Commissioner of Mcd 1995 (2) Ad Delhi 573 also this Court has vide paragraphs 120 to 124 rejected the arguments based on the plea of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectations by holding that the doctrine or promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government of the public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is prohibited by law or which was devoid of the authority or power of the officer of the Government or the public authority to make the same and that a legitimate expectation to be so has to be legitimate and not illegitimate one. 18.3 There can be no estoppel against statute, is a preposition of law too well settled and hardly needs any authority to be cited to support the same. 18.4 We cannot hold that by promulgating the lump sum payment scheme of tax the Corporation is estopped from exercising its statutory power to amend the assessment list under Sections 126/127 of the Act, where the applicability of those provisions is attracted.
(19) Having so staled the law, we now proceed to deal with the individual cases. Common Cause a public Organisation & Ors. VS. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. This petition appears to have been filed more or less in public interest seeking a general relief though petitioners No.2 to 7 ( six individuals) have also joined in filing the petition claiming reliefs personal to themselves. The relief prayed for is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to implement resolutions No.990, 1029 and 1030 dated 10.2.86 and similar resolutions passed in the month of February, 1987 to 1990 by the Corporation so that the rateable value in respect of the properties as to which benefit of lumpsum payment scheme has been claimed in any of the above said 5 financial years may not be revised. Cw 4895/94 Smt.Reena Suri & Anr. Vs. Mcd & Anr. In this petition the property is No..16, Cc, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The rateable value is sought to be increased due to ‘re- erection/addition/alterations and letting of the building or part thereof vide notice dated 23.3.91 (Annexure P-4A). The operative part of the assessment order, passed by the assessing authority and impugned in the petition, itself states – “the above rateable value is, however, subject to rectification if the assessee Files necessary documents within two months from the date of this order.” The order of assessment itself has thus left scope open to the petitioners to file documents and seek rectification if permitted by law. Cw 2818/95 Sh. Mohinder Kumar Jain VS. Mcd The impugned order of assessment dated 22.11.93 (Annexure P-7) reveals the rateable value having undergone a change on account of change in the user of the premises as also in the rate of rent of the premises in occupation of the tenant. Cw 3967/94 Sh.Satya Paul Vaid VS. Mcd The impugned order of assessment dated 30.3.94 (Annexure P-9) has been passed in the absence of the petitioner for his failure to avail the opportunity of hearing. He was served with a notice Annexure P-5 requiring him to show cause against the proposed amendment in the assessment list so as to incorporate increase in rateable value due to amendment in Drc Act. Rateable value as proposed has been accepted as the petitioner did not join in the assessment proceedings and failed to produce any material to form an opinion against the proposed increase. Cw 3533/94 M/s.Peevee Enterprises VS. Mcd & Anr. The rateable value has been revised and increased vide order of assessment dated 4.3.94 (Annexure P-9) on account of the properly having gone beyond the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act consequent to the amendment w.c.f 1.12.88 noticed hereinabove. Cw 30/96 Shri L.C. Jain Vs. Mcd & Anr. There was no assessment finalised till the date of the filing of the petition. Only notice was issued to the petitioner proposing a revision of the rateable value. Without awaiting Finalisation of the revision of rateable value pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent, the petitioner has rushed post-haste to this Court by filing this petition and sought for stay of the proceedings by an interim order dated 4.1.96 the Court had restrained final decision being taken in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Cw 4317/94 M/s.Vibha Jain Trust VS. Mcd & Anr. Vide the impugned order of assessment dated 22.2.94 (Annexure P-11) the rateable value has been revised due to increase in the rate of rent as also due to amendment in Delhi Rent Control Act w.e.f. 1.12.88 and consequent change in the very basis of the assessment of the rateable value. Cw 743/95 Smt. Mani Devi Jain VS. Mcd The impugned order of assessment dated 15.3.94 (Annexure P-11) has revised the assessment of retable value mainly due to increase .in rent and amendment in Delhi Rent Control Act w.e.f. 1.12.88. Cw 1996/94 Sh.Gopal Balachandni & Ors. VS. Mcd The impugned order of assessment dated 22,3.94 (Annexure R-3) has revised the rateable value consequent to amendment in Delhi Rent Control Act w.e.f. 1.12.88, as also to carry out the directions contained in an appellate order. The Assessing Authority has called for some information from the assessee which the assessee (petitioner) had failed to furnish. Cw 2768/95 Dev Kumari Sood VS. Mcd The impugned order of assessment dated 31.3.95 (Annexure P-15) has revised the rateable value on account of letting out of the property and amendment in the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. The assessment order records the assessee having defaulted in furnishing any specific proof regarding rent received, security advance taken etc. Inspite of having passed the order of assessment the Deputy Assessor and Collector has directed – ‘the case could be considered for reassessment if the tax payer file the requisite information.’ Cw 2599/95 Smt.Mridula Dugar VS. Mcd & Anr. By impugned order of assessment dated 16.3.95 (Annexure P-7) the rateable value has been revised on account of increase in the rental value of the premises. Inspite of the order of assessment having been finalised, the order of assessment states – “The above rateable values have been fixed upon the basis of the information furnished by the tax payer. If any information to the contrary is received and are R.V. calls for increase, the same shall be carried out through rectification of this order.” Cw 3075/95 Mrs. Krishna Prakash VS. Mod & Anr. The impugned order of assessment dated 28.2.95 (Annexure P-5) has been finalised for failure of the assessee to furnish the requisite information inspite of opportunity having been allowed for the purpose. In an objection filed in response to notice proposing amendment in the assessment list, the assessee had taken stand that there was no change in the property and no addition/alterations made which might have the effect altering the rateable value. The assessee has taken benefit of lumpsum payment of tax scheme. Though the reason for revision of rateable value might have been amendment in the Drc Act, but the order of assessment does not say so. Notice proposing amendment in the assessment list issued by the respondent and served on the assessee has not been filed by the petitioner. The respondent Mcd has not filed any counter. The tenor of the impugned order (Annexure P-5) shows that if the Assessing Authority has proceeded on any misapprehension as to the facts then the scope for rectification in the order of assessment is still open and may be availed of by the assessee petitioner, Cw 2598/95 Smt. Kiran Mani Jain VS. Mcd & Anr. The impugned order of assessment dated 23.3.95 (Annexure P-U) shows the rateable value having been revised due to amendment in Drc Act. The only contention raised by the assessee was that in view of the assessee and the property being covered by the lumpsum payment of lax scheme, the revision in rateable value was not permissible. The assessee did not file any proof regarding the present position of the property i.e. whether it was self-occupied or rented. The revision in rateable value as proposed by the notice was confirmed by the order of assessment. May be that the assessee did not furnish the relevant and required information belabouring under impression that revision in rateable value was not permissible in view of the lump sum payment of tax scheme. The order is still open to rectification if it proceeds on any factually incorrect premises and if the assessee may furnish correct information which may have an impact on the figure of rateable value arrived at by the Assessing authority. Cw 3965/94 Sh.Dharam Bhushan Jain VS. Mcd Vide order of Assessment dated 13.6.94 (Annexure P-8), the rateable value has been revised due to amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act w.e.f. 1.12.88. The property is commercial and rateable value has been fixed at Rs.3100.00 w.e.f.l.4.88 and at Rs.3600.00 w.e.f. 1.12.88. In his reply Annexure P-7 to the notice dated 16.8.91 the only plea taken by the petitioner is that the rateable value was not open to revision in view of the lump sum payment of tax scheme. The quantum of rateable value as proposed and upheld by the order of assessment was not disputed by the Assessee. Cw 166/96 V.M.Thukral VS. Mcd & Anr. The impugned order of assessment dated 23.11.95 (Annexure P-8) has revised the rateable value, due to increase in the rate of rent. The figures of the rent received as furnished by the petitioner have been accepted by the Assessing Authority. The only pica taken by the Assessee was that the rateable value was not liable to be revised in view of the lump sum payment ol’ tax scheme. 19, All the above said petitions are disposed of in terms of the following orders :- (i) In Cwp 997/94, the petitioner Common Cause – a public organisation, the petitioner No. 1 is held not entitled to any relief. The petitioners No.2 to 7 are also held not entitled to any relief in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed. The petitioners No.2 to 7 arc, however, allowed liberty of filing appeals against their individual orders of assessment and seek condensation of delay in filing the appeals by having resort to Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. (ii) Cwp 2818/95, 3967/94, 3533/94, 4317/94, 743/95, 1896/94, 3965/94 and 166/96 arc also dismissed as the petitioners therein arc held not entitled to the grant of any relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Each of the petitioners would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order of assessment and seek condensation of delay in filing the appeal by having resort to Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. (ill) CWPs 4895/94, 2768/95, 2599/95, 3075/95, 2598/95 are dismissed in as much as the petitioners in these petitions are still at liberty to approach the Assessing Authority, make a true and correct statement of facts as to the state of affairs of the property and produce such documents and information as may be in their possession or power so as to assist the Assessing Authority in arriving at a correct rateable value. If any of the petitioners in the CWPs mentioned in this sub-para may approach the Assessing Authority within a period of two months from today and make a request for rehearing and rectification in the order of assessment staling the grounds in support of suggested relief, then the assessing authority shall entertain the prayer and appoint a date of hearing and then dispose of the question of assessment of rateable value afresh. (iv) CWPs 30/96 is dismissed as premature. The interim order dated 4.1.95 stands vacated. The assessing authority is at liberty to finalise the order of assessment after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner if, aggrieved by the final order of the assessment, shall have remedy against it allowed by law.
(20) All the 15 petitions stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to the costs.