I.T.C. Vs. N.D.M.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned assessment order fixing the annual rateable value of the Maurya Sheraton Hotel & Towers, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi at Rs. 96,80,37,888/- less 10% with effect from 1.4.1995.

(2.) THE validity of the impugned assessment order has been challenged on various grounds enumerated in the writ petition. The grounds of challenge are inter-connected and substantially relate to one matter i.e., measure for determination of the annual rateable value of the property in question. However, main grievance of the petitioner is that the taxing authority did not observe the law and failed in its duty to determine the annual rateable value of the property in question in accordance with Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as directed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 42-44/87, New Delhi Municipal Committee v. East India Hotels Ltd. It is further stated that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and as such it is null and void. Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the NDMC Act provides an effective form to resolve the dispute pertaining to the levy and assessment of property tax and the petitioner should exhaust the said alternative statutory remedy before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand contends that existence of an alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that this is a case where the taxing authority has committed a patent illegality by determining the rateable value of the property in question in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in NDMC v. East India Hotels Ltd. (supra). It was further contended that the impugned assessment order is null and void and it is, therefore, open to a party aggrieved by such illegal assessment order to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing appropriate writ for quashing it without his being obliged to pursue an onerous or inefficacious alternative remedy.

(3.) IN Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. C.L. Batra, 1994(5) JT (SC) 241 : 1994(3) RRR 216(SC), the Supreme Court had occasion to consider an interim order made by this Court in the matter of property tax. The assessee filed a suit in this Court and obtained an interim order of stay against the recovery of property tax. While reversing the interim order of this Court, their Lordships of the Supreme Court pointed out that there was no satisfactory explanation as to why the statutory remedy of appeal was allowed to be by- passed.