IN THE COURT OF THE LD.
DISTRICT JUDGE
NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
HOUSE TAX APPEAL NO. ____________ OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
TIKKA B.S. BEDI … APPELLANT
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL … RESPONDENT
INDEX
S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS.
Court Fees
Memo of Parties
Synopsis & List of Dates
Appeal under Section 115 of New Delhi Municipal
Act, 1994 against the impugned orders dated
14.06.2017 & 16.08.2018
List of documents along with documents
ANNEXURE- A
Copy of the notice issued by the Respondent
dated 11.02.2008.
ANNEXURE- B
Copy of the letter dated 24.03.2008 sent by the
Appellant to the Respondent.
ANNEXURE- C
Copy of the Written Objections dated 28.08.2015
sent to the Respondent.
ANNEXURE- D
Copy of the impugned order dated 14.06.2017
passed by the Respondent.
ANNEXURE- E
Copy of the representation letter dated
15.12.2017.
ANNEXURE- F
Copy of the application dated 07.06.2018 filed by
the Appellant.
ANNEXURE- G
Copy of the letter dated 12.07.2018 calling upon
the Appellant to appear before the Respondent
on 18.07.2018.
ANNEXURE- H
Copy of the letter dated 07.06.2018 wherein
Appellant attached all the previously sent
objection letters.
ANNEXURE- I
Copy of the letter dated 26.07.2018
ANNEXURE- J
Copy of the impugned order dated 16.08.2018
passed by the Respondent.
ANNEXURE- K
Copy of the letter dated 10.04.2019 sent by the
Appellant to the Respondent.
ANNEXURE- L
Copy of the letter dated 23.04.2019 sent by the
Appellant
ANNEXURE- M
Copy of the notice dated 20.03.2019 issued
against the Appellant u/s 72 of the Act.
ANNEXURE- N Formatted: Font: Bold
Copy of the letter dated 14.02.2020 sent by the
Appellant to the Respondent
Vakalatnama
FILED BY,
MRINAL AGARWAL
ADVOCATE
F-12, FF, JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI 110014
9971084442, 011-40079104
DATE: /02/2020
PLACE: NEW DELHI
IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT JUDGE
NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
HOUSE TAX APPEAL NO. ____________ OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
TIKKA B.S. BEDI … APPELLANT
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL … RESPONDENT
MEMO OF PARTIES
TIKKA BRIJINDER SINGH BEDI
132, GOLF LINKS
NEW DELHI- 110003
MOB. NO:
…APPELLANT
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
PALIKA KENDRA, PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI- 110001
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
…RESPONDENT
FILED BY,
MRINAL AGARWAL
ADVOCATE
F-12, FF, JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI 110014
9971084442, 011-40079104
DATE: /02/2020
PLACE: NEW DELHI
SYNOPSIS
The Appellant is the owner of residential building bearing no. 132, Golf
Links, New Delhi- 110003 and is the person primarily liable to pay property
tax to the Respondent in respect of the said property. The aforesaid
property was being assessed at the Rateable Value (RV) of Rs. 18,400/-
and a hike in the RV to the extent of Rs. 23,84,000/- was proposed by the
Respondent on comparable rent basis with effect from 01.04.2007 and a
notice in this regard was issued by the Respondent on 11.02.2008 under
Section 72 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994.
The Appellant filed his objections against the said notice vide letter dated
24.03.2008. In the said letter dated 24.03.2008, Appellant objected to the
proposal of the Respondent to hike the RV from Rs. 18,400/- to Rs.
23,84,000/- and submitted that the proposed hike is unreasonable,
arbitrary, unjust and illegal. Thereafter, Appellant personally appeared
before the Assessing Authority/Respondent on 17.08.2015 wherein the
Respondent asked the Appellant to re-submit his objections to the
proposed hike on or before 30.08.2015 and the same were filed on
28.08.2015.
The Respondent vide its impugned assessment order dated 14.06.2017
confirmed the proposed hike in Rateable Value (RV) vis-a-vis the premises
owned by the Appellant and issued an order under Section 72 of the Act.
The Appellant then filed a separate application dated 07.06.2018 before
the Respondent seeking rectification/review of the impugned assessment
order dated 14.06.2017. Pursuant to such letter, a hearing opportunity
was granted to the Appellant in relation to the review of the impugned
assessment order dated 14.06.2017 and the Appellant was asked to
appear before the Respondent on 18.07.2018. The Appellant could not
appear before the Respondent on the said date of 18.07.2018 because the
letter from the Respondent intimating the date of personal hearing as
18.07.2018 was received by the Appellant after the said date and thus, he
appeared before it on 19.07.2018. Further, the Appellant, on request of
the Respondent, vide letter dated 26.07.2018 sent the copies of the
property tax returns filed by the Appellant till that period. It is also
submitted that Respondent unjustifiably increased RV in the year 2007-08
from Rs. 18,400/- to Rs. 23,84,000/- but again reduced it to the original
RV of Rs. 18,400/- and the same was in effect till the year 2015-16.
Furthermore, RV was again revised to the proposed hike of Rs.
23,84,000/- from the year 2016-17 and the same continued till the year
2017-18. Further, the said RV at Rs. 23,84,000/- was further decreased to
Rs. 5,90,400/- with effect from 2018-19.
The Respondent vide its impugned order dated 16.08.2018 confirmed the
findings of the impugned assessment order dated 14.06.2017 passed by
the assessing authority of the Respondent. The Appellant sent a letter to
the Respondent on 10.04.2019 requesting it to review its order dated
16.08.2018 and no response to the said letter has been received from the
Respondent till date. Furthermore, on 14.02.2020 Appellant sent a letter to
the Respondent indicating its intention to pay the due amount under
protest against the subject property as and when the due amount is
notified to the Appellant herein.
Thus, the present appeal is filed before this Hon’ble Court for setting aside
of the impugned orders dated 14.06.2017 and 16.08.2018.
LIST OF DATES
11.02.2008 Notice u/s 72 of NDMC Act, 1994 issued against the
Appellant with a proposal to revise existing RV of Rs.
18,400/- to 23,84,000/- with effect from 01.04.2007 on
comparable rent basis.
23.02.2008 The notice under Section 72 of the Act is received by the
Appellant.
24.03.2008 A reply to the aforesaid notice is filed by the Appellant
along with the various objections to the said notice.
17.08.2015 Appellant personally appeared before the Respondent.
Respondent asked the Appellant to re-deposit the
objections before 30.08.2015.
28.08.2015 Appellant re-filed the objections with the Respondent.
14.06.2017 Respondent vide its impugned assessment order
confirmed the proposed hike in Rateable Value (RV) vis-
a-vis the premises owned by the Appellant and issued an
order under Section 72 of the Act.
18.07.2018 On request of the Appellant, a hearing opportunity was
granted to the Appellant for review of the impugned
assessment order dated 14.06.2017 but none appeared
on that date.
19.07.2018 Appellant appeared before the Respondent and informed
it that he received the hearing letter late so therefore he
could not appear on 18.07.2018. Appellant requested the
Respondent to consider the objections filed by him on
24.03.2008 and 28.08.2015.
16.08.2018 The Respondent vide its impugned order confirmed the
findings of the impugned assessment order dated
14.06.2017 passed by the assessing authority of the
Respondent.
10.04.2019 Appellant wrote a letter to the Respondent requesting it
to review the impugned order dated 16.08.2018.
Appellant points out that the contents of Paragraph 5 of
the impugned oreder dated 16.08.2018 are false. Thus,
he requested that the RV for the year 2007-08, 2008-09
and 2009-10 be reviewed and made reasonable.
__.02.2020 Hence, the present Appeal.
IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT JUDGE
NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
HOUSE TAX APPEAL NO. ____________ OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
TIKKA B.S. BEDI … APPELLANT
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL … RESPONDENT
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL ACT, 1994 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED
14.06.2017 AND 16.08.2018 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING
NO. 132, GOLF LINKS, NEW DELHI
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. That the Appellant is the owner of residential building bearing no.
132, Golf Links, New Delhi 110003 and is the person primarily liable
to pay property tax to the Respondent in respect of the said
property. The Appellant is residing in the aforesaid property since
the year 1956.
2. That the said property was being assessed at the Rateable Value of
Rs. 18,400/- per annum by the Respondent till the year ____2015-
16. However, only in the year 2007-08, an exorbitant and
completely baseless hike in the Rateable Value to the extent of Rs.
23,84,000/- per annum was proposed by the Respondent on
comparable rent basis with effect from 01.04.2007 and a notice
dated 11.02.2008 under Section 72 of the New Delhi Municipal
Council Act, 1994 in this regard was issued by the Respondent to
the Appellant.
A copy of the notice dated 11.02.2008 is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE A.
3. That pursuant to the receipt of the aforesaid notice dated
11.02.2008 on 23.02.2008, the Appellant filed his objections against
the said notice vide his letter dated 24.03.2008. In the said letter
dated 24.03.2008, the Appellant objected to the proposal of the
Respondent to capriciously hike the Rateable Value from Rs.
18,400/- per annum to Rs. 23,84,000/- per annum and in this regard
the Appellant duly submitted that the proposed hike was completely
unreasonable, arbitrary, unjust and illegal. Further, the Appellant
submitted that the proposed hike was not applicable to the subject
property of the Appellant and that the said proposal for a hike had
been made without taking into consideration the factual
circumstances of the case.
A copy of the letter dated 24.03.2008 sent by the Appellant to the
Respondent is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE B.
4. That after filing his objections to the proposed hike vide letter dated
24.03.2008, the Appellant personally appeared before the Assessing
Authority of the Respondent on 17.08.2015 wherein the Respondent
asked the Appellant to re-submit his objections to the proposed hike
on or before 30.08.2015.
5. That in response to the Respondent’s direction to the Appellant to
re-submit the objections, the Appellant again filed his written
objections before the Respondent on 28.08.2015.
A copy of the Written Objections dated 28.08.2015 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE C.
6. That thereafter the Respondent vide its impugned assessment order
dated 14.06.2017 confirmed the proposed hike in Rateable Value
(RV) vis-à-vis the subject property and accordingly issued an order
under Section 72 of the Act. In the said order dated 14.06.2017, the
Respondent wrongly recorded that the Appellant failed to file any
objection letters to the notice dated 11.02.2008; whereas, the
written objections letter wasere filed twice by the Appellant within
the stipulated time i.e. on 24.03.2008 and 28.08.2015. Thus,
Respondent passed the impugned order without taking into
consideration various objection letterss filed by the Appellant against
the proposed hike wherein one of the objections was that there was
no increase in the area of the subject property.
A copy of the impugned order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the
Respondent is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE D.
7. That subsequent to passing of the said impugned order dated
14.06.2017, the Appellant sent a representation letter dated
15.12.2017 to the Respondent requesting it to review and revise the
impugned assessment order dated 14.06.2017. In this regard, on
07.06.2018, the Appellant filed a separate application before the
Respondent seeking rectification/ review of the impugned
assessment order dated 14.06.2017 on the ground that the said
assessment order had failed to take into consideration the written
objections filed by the Appellant and hence the impugned order
dated 14.06.2017 was illegal and perverse and did not consider the
copies of Tax Returns filed by the Appellant.
A copy of the representation letter dated 15.12.2017 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE E.
A copy of the application dated 07.06.2018 filed by the Appellant is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE F.
8. That in view of the review application dated 07.06.2018, a hearing
opportunity was granted to the Appellant by the Respondent and
accordingly the Appellant was asked to appear before the
Respondent on 18.07.2018.
A copy of the letter dated 12.07.2018 calling upon the Appellant to
appear before the Respondent is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE G.
9. That on 07.06.2018, the Appellant sent another letter to the
Respondent attaching all the previous letters wherein he had raised
objections against the proposed hike in rateable value.
A copy of the letter dated 07.06.2018 is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE H.
10. That however the Appellant could not appear before the Respondent
on the said date of 18.07.2018 because the letter from the
Respondent intimating the date of personal hearing as 18.07.2018
was received by the Appellant after the said date. Nonetheless, the
Appellant appeared before the Respondent on 19.07.2018 and
informed the Respondent that he could not appear before it on
18.07.2018 due to the aforesaid reason. During the personal hearing
on 19.07.2018, the Appellant made his submissions opposing the
validity of the impugned assessment order dated 14.06.2017 and
requested the Respondent to take into consideration the written
objections letters filed by the Respondent on 24.03.2008 and
28.08.2015. Further, the Appellant, on request of the Respondent,
vide letter dated 26.07.2018 sent the copies of the property tax
returns filed by the Appellant till that period.
A copy of the letter dated 26.07.2018 is attached herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE I.
11. That in light of the aforesaid, the Respondent vide order dated
16.08.2018 confirmed the findings of the impugned assessment
order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the assessing authority of the
Respondent. However, in the order dated 16.08.2018, the
Respondent failed to categorically discuss all the written objections
filed by the Appellant and rather summarily rejected the said written
objections of the Appellant. Further, the Respondent wrongly
recorded in order dated 16.08.2018 that the Appellant submitted
copies of Property Tax Return for only two assessment years i.e.
2010-11 and 2014-15; whereas, the Appellant, in addition to the
said Property Tax Returns, had submitted copies of the return for
assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 on the request
from the Respondent. Thus, Respondent considered only the tax
returns of the year 2010-11 and onwards. Further, it is stated that
RV at the rate of Rs. 18,400/- continued to be in effect till the year
2015-16 barring the year 2007-08 when the hike was proposed by
the Respondent from Rs. 18,400/- to 23,84,000/-. Furthermore, it is
submitted that RV was again reduced from Rs. 23,84,000/- to Rs.
5,90,400/- with effect from the year 2018-19.
A copy of the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the Respondent is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE J.
12. That subsequently the Appellant sent a letter to the Respondent on
10.04.2019 requesting it to review its order dated 16.08.2018;
however, no response to the said letter has been received from the
Respondent till date. The Appellant in furtherance of its letter dated
10.04.2019 wrote another letter to the Respondent on 23.04.2019
and again submitted its objections against the proposed hike in
rateable value along with the reference to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court ruling in Civil Appeal Nos. 903-930 of 2019 dated 22.01.2019.
A copy of the letter dated 10.04.2019 sent by the Appellant to the
Respondent is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure K.
A copy of the letter dated 23.04.2019 sent by the Appellant to the
Respondent is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure L.
13. That in the meantime on 20.03.2019, the Respondent issued
another notice under Section 72 of the Act to the Appellant
proposing the increase in rateable value from Rs. 5,90,400/- per
annum to Rs. 85,44,200/- per annum with effect from 01.04.2018
and 35 days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid notice were
given to the Appellant for filing any objection to the proposed hike.
A copy of the notice dated 20.03.2019 issued against the Appellant
u/s 72 of the Act is attached herewith and marked as Annexure M.
14. That the Appellant sent a letter to the Respondent dated 14.02.2020
indicating its intention to pay the due amount under protest against
the subject property in accordance with the old RV of Rs. 18,400/-
as and when the aforesaid due amount is notified to the Appellant.
A copy of the letter dated 14.02.2020 sent by the Appellant to the Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.49", No bullets or
numbering
Respondent is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure N. Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
14.15. That the present Appeal is directed against the impugned
assessment order dated 14.06.2017 and impugned rectification
order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the Respondent hiking the
Rateable Value of the subject property from Rs. 18,400/- per annum
to Rs. 23,84,000/- per annum on the following amongst other
grounds which are in alternate and without prejudice to each other.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
A. BECAUSE the impugned orders of assessment of subject property
raising Rateable Value from Rs. 18,400/- per annum to Rs.
23,84,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2007 are contrary to law and facts
established on record.
B. BECAUSE the impugned orders dated 14.06.2017 and 16.08.2018
raising the Rateable Value from Rs. 18,400/- per annum to Rs.
23,84,000/- per annum on the basis of notice under Section 72 of
the Act dated 11.02.2008 i.e. after a period of 10 years is barred by
time and hence illegal. In Anita Singhvi v. New Delhi Municipal
Council, [W.P.(C) No. 1638/2017] the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
held thus:
“7. It may be noted here that petitions assailing property tax
assessment orders have been filed before this Court in the
recent past, wherein the respondent/NDMC has been
passing orders under Section 72 of the NDMC Act in
respect of notices that were issued to assesses over a
decade ago. It is most unacceptable and inequitable that the
said notices have been kept pending for several years without
any justification. In this duration, the status of the properties
in question could have changed as also the ownership thereof.
Once the said notices are adjudicated, the
respondent/NDMC is quick to raise a demand at one
go on the assesses, that relates to a number of
assessment years and runs into lakhs of rupees. This
results in harassing and unnecessarily burdening the assessee
who is left struggling to arrange the funds to meet the
deadline of the pay by date or end up paying interest on the
delayed payment, apart from facing other legal consequences
contemplated in the Statute.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC has been called
upon to explain the reason and the logic behind keeping such
notices pending for several years together when they ought to
have been disposed of in a reasonable period. He states that
he has shared the views expressed by this Court on earlier
occasions, with the Department.
9. While refraining from passing any adverse orders against
the respondent/NDMC for the present, it is made clear that if
the NDMC does not mend its way by deciding pending
notices issued under Section 72 of the NDMC Act
within a reasonable time of one year from the date of
issuance, on the next occasion that may arise, the
Court will be compelled to issue directions to the
NDMC to streamline the entire procedure and make it
time bound.”
[Emphasis supplied]
C. BECAUSE in a plethora of judgements passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it has been opined by the apex court that in
absence of prescription of the period of limitation, the statutory
authority must exercise its jurisdiction within reasonable time. In
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk
Production Union Limited, [SLP(C) No. 5040 of 2007], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held the following:
“17. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been
prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction
within a reasonable period.”
D. In Ved Marwah v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors. [W.P.(C) No.
188/2018] the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held thus:
“18. In view of the above reasoning, it is held the impugned
final orders of assessment and the demands issued are
clearly unreasonable and void. They are hereby
quashed. Consequently, it is held that the NDMC is at
liberty to rework the assessments in respect of the
properties that are the subject matter of these
proceedings, by issuing fresh notices for the periods
commencing from 3 years prior to the date on which
the final notices were issued, and finalize the
assessments within reasonable time. In the event of
grievance on the part of the assessee to such fresh
assessment orders, it is open to them to approach the
appellate tribunal; provided they deposit the amount towards
the tax liability for the base year.”
[Emphasis supplied]
E. BECAUSE the impugned orders dated 14.06.2017 and 16.08.2018
were passed after 10 years of issuing the notice under Section 72 of
the Act, the same are contrary to the findings of the Apex Court and
therefore, must be set aside.
F. BECAUSE the Respondent had circulated the New Delhi Municipal
Council (Assessment List) Bye-Laws, 2001 under Section 70 read
with Section 388 of the Act. Bye-Law 13 of the proposed
Assessment List Bye- Laws, 2001 providing that all the fresh
proposals initiated under Section 72 of the Act must be decided
within a period of 3 years. It is informed that the said Bye-Laws
were not published as envisaged under Section 391 of the Act.
However, the proposed bye-laws of 2001 portray the clear intention
of the Respondent that the proposals initiated under Section 72 of
the Act should be decided within a period of 3 years. Thus, delay of
more than 10 years in adjudicating the notice under Section 72 is
unreasonable and against the spirit of justice.
G. BECAUSE the impugned orders revising the Rateable Value from Rs.
18,400/- per annum to Rs. 23,84,000/- per annum w.e.f. 01.04.2007
have been made on comparable rent basis under Bye-Law 12 of
New Delhi Municipal Council House Tax Bye- Laws, 1962. It is
submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.T.C. v.
New Delhi Municipal Council, [Civil Appeal No. 787 of 2016] held
that the New Delhi Municipal Council House Tax Bye- Laws, 1962
were framed under Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 which has since been
repealed and that the said Bye-Laws of 1962 were inconsistent with
Section 63(1) of the Act. The Apex Court further held that it was
impermissible to refer to the Bye-Laws framed under the Punjab
Municipal Act, 1911 for levy and assessment of property tax under
the Act. Further, it is contended that revising the Rateable Value on
comparable rent basis vide impugned orders dated 14.06.2017 and
16.08.2018 is ultra-vires the provisions of Section 63(1) of the Act
and is thus, unsustainable in law.
H. BECAUSE the impugned orders summarily reject the written
objections submitted by the Appellant to the Respondent against the
notice dated 11.02.2008 issued under Section 72 of the Act. It is
contended that in the impugned orders dated 14.06.2017 and
16.08.2018, there are no clear and categorical findings against the
specific objections made by the Appellant and thus, the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
I. BECAUSE the impugned orders dated 14.06.2017 and 16.08.2018
are contrary to facts of the present case. It is submitted that the
impugned order of 16.08.2018 wrongly records that the Appellant
failed to furnish the Property Tax Returns of 2007-08, 2008-09 and
2009-10 whereas the Appellant along with PTRs for the year of
2010-11 and 2014-15 had also submitted PTRs for the aforesaid
years of 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. It is this submitted that the
finding arrived at in the impugned judgement is influenced by the
aforesaid anomaly and thus, without considering the PTRs for the
aforesaid 5 years, the Respondent has committed a grave error in
assessing the house tax on the subject property. Thus, the
impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
J. BECAUSE the Respondent failed to take into consideration the fact
that the subject property is self-occupied by the Appellant herein
since 1986 and therefore, the Rateable Value computed on
comparable rent basis is wholly unjustified and illegal. Further, it is
submitted that no new construction has taken place upon the
subject property and since there is no change in the subject
property, the rateable value is not liable to be enhanced.
PRAYER
In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully and
most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly and graciously be
pleased to:
A. Allow the present Appeal and consequently set aside the impugned
orders dated 14.06.2017 and 16.08.2018 issued by the Respondent;
B. Direct the Respondent to collect the tax at the existing rateable
value of the subject property at Rs. 18,400/- per annum; and
C. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
APPELLANT
FILED BY,
MRINAL AGARWAL
ADVOCATE
F-12, FF, JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI 110014
9971084442, 011-40079104
DATE: /02/2020
PLACE: NEW DELHI
IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT JUDGE
NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
HOUSE TAX APPEAL NO. ____________ OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
TIKKA B.S. BEDI … APPELLANT
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL … RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Tikka Brijinder Singh Bedi, S/o Late J.S. Bedi, aged about ___ years, R/o
132 Golf Links, New Delhi- 110003, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under:
1. That I am the Appellant in the aforesaid case and that I am well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and
hence I am competent to swear upon the present Affidavit.
2. That the accompanying House Tax Appeal for setting aside of the
impugned orders dated 14.06.2017 and 16.08.2018 has been
drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the
accompanying Appeal are true and correct. The contents of the
accompanying Appeal may be read as a part and parcel of the
present Affidavit as the same is not being repeated herein for the
sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of February 2020 that the contents
of the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
