MCD Vs. NEHRU PLACE HOTEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM(M) No.820/2000 is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in House Tax Appeal No.113/2000 dated 8th May,2000 whereby the learned Judge has set aside the order of the assessing authority and remanded the matter for reassessment on the basis of guidelines given by him in the aforesaid judgment. Counsel for the MCD submits that the first Appellate Authority has dealt with four points in the appeal. The first point deals with the date with effect from which the rateable value can be calculated. On this point learned counsel for the MCD submits that only guidelines laid down by the Legislature are in Section 129 which deals with this aspect specifically and she submits that after notice of completion is given by the assessee, 15 days thereafter is the date with effect from which the rateable value can be assessed. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that rateable value can only be assessed from the date the completion certification has been issued by the competent authority. He submits that without completion certificate it is not possible to use the building as there is a bar under Section 346(2) of the Act. Consequently, he submits that the rateable value will be effected from the date completion certificate has been granted.

(2.) The second point taken by the First Appellate Authority is whether the value of that land has been correctly assessed. Counsel for the MCD submits that the value of the land has to be taken on the date of commencement of construction and therefore, the assessing authority had taken into consideration the value of the land with effect from that date taking into consideration the value of the plot No.38 and applying the formula of escalation thereto to arrive as value of the land of the assessee in question. The respondent, on the other hand, submits that since the land was purchased from the DDA and is a hotel plot, only that value which is the actual value can be taken into consideration for the purposes of rateable value. He submits that plot No.38 is a commercial plot and cannot have the same value as that of a hotel plot. Even otherwise, he submits that the sites may be different or may have other variable factors which command a different price. Therefore, in order to determine actual price. The accepted escalation determined by the DDA can be taken into consideration. As far as the date of commencement of construction is concerned, both counsel have no objection to the same being 1st January,1984.

(3.) The third point taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court is whether the assessing authority has wrongly taken the cost of construction of building into consideration. Counsel for the MCD submits that the assessment of cost of construction of building has been taken on the basis of the balance sheet provided by the assessee. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the balance sheet do not pertain to the cost of construction of the hotel only. They also pertain to other ancillary buildings which are not part of the hotel block. Even otherwise, it is submitted that only in the event of suppression of cost of construction an alternative means can be adopted and that can be the CPWD rates.