Gurvinder Saluja vs New Delhi Municipal Council

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 15.10.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 28.10.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 28.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010156382024
+ W.P.(C) 4427/2024, CM APPL. 18071/2024 and CM APPL.
26446/2025
GURVINDER SALUJA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. A. Niyazi, Sr. Adv.
along with Ms. Anamika Ghai
Niyazi and Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj,
Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharma, ASC.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHARAT PARASHAR
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. In September 2023, the Respondent, New Delhi Municipal
Council (‘NDMC’), issued a notice under Section 72 of the New Delhi
Municipal Council Act, 1994 (‘the Act’), proposing to enhance the
rateable value, i.e. , the valuation used to calculate property tax, of the
Petitioner’s premises at Khan Market, New Delhi with effect from
01.04.2023.
2. Three months later, in deciding that Notice, NDMC fixed
revised rateable values reaching back to July 2012. The Petitioner
contends that the proviso to Section 72 bars any such retrospective
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 1 of 11

enhancement. NDMC relies on an earlier assessment order and
submits that the Petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal. The
threshold question is whether the challenges raised by the Petitioner
should be adjudicated in this writ petition or examined through that
remedy.
3. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner initially challenged
the constitutional validity of the expression ‘at any time’ in Section
72. Prayer (a) was not pressed and stood disposed of by the order
dated 06.10.2026. In paragraph 9 of his written arguments, the
Petitioner has likewise given up Prayer (c), which challenged an
earlier assessment dated 10.01.2017. Prayer (c) is disposed of
accordingly, though without any finding that the 2017 assessment
stood modified or superseded. What remains is the challenge to the
subsequent assessment and tax demands, alongside the prayer for a
broader inquiry into allegedly arbitrary assessments across Khan
Market.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The property in question is Shop No. 61, Khan Market, New
Delhi. The Petitioner claims ownership through his late father, in
whose name the municipal assessment continues. The shop is
occupied by M/s Sai Gadgets Shop Private Limited, a company in
which the Petitioner is a director. While the Petitioner treats this as
self-occupation, NDMC treats occupation by the corporate entity as
distinct from occupation by the individual owner.
5. By Notice dated 26.09.2023 under Section 72, NDMC proposed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 2 of 11

to raise the existing rateable value of the shop from ₹1,62,400/- to
₹1,42,91,100/- with effect from 01.04.2023. The proposed value was
based on the reasonably expected annual rent of the shop, compared
with the rent of Shop No. 19-B, Khan Market. The Notice states that
the proposed amendment would not create any increased liability for a
period prior to the financial year in which the notice was issued.
6. The resulting Assessment Order dated 20.12.2023 adjudicates
that September 2023 Notice. After recording that no one appeared at
the hearings on 08.11.2023 and 12.12.2023, the Order acknowledges
the Petitioner’s emailed written submissions. It then takes the date of
the company’s incorporation, 25.07.2012, as its starting point, fixing
the rateable value at ₹62,10,000/- from that date with successive 15%
enhancements from 25.07.2015, 25.07.2018, and 25.07.2021. From
01.04.2023 onwards, it fixes the rateable value at ₹1,42,91,100/- by
applying the rental rate of Shop No. 19-B, Khan Market to the area
attributed to the Petitioner’s shop, and directs that a bill be raised on
these revised values.
7. During the hearing before this Court on 13.10.2026, NDMC
produced an earlier Assessment Order dated 26.05.2022, which was
handed over to the learned senior counsel representing the Petitioner
and time was granted to examine it. That May 2022 Order refers to an
older Notice dated 31.03.2013 and purports to fix the rateable value at
the same figure of ₹62,10,000/- with effect from 01.04.2012. The
Petitioner disputes its communication and continuing effect. He
contends that the subsequent finalisation of property tax returns
displaced that assessment, and also questions its lawfulness on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 3 of 11

grounds of delay and the protection claimed for earlier assessments.
8. The portal extracts relied upon by the Petitioner record entries
attributed to decisions dated 29.09.2022. Those entries show a rateable
value of ₹62,10,000/- from 01.04.2012 and ₹1,62,400/- from
01.04.2013 and specified subsequent dates. How the May 2022
Assessment Order, the September 2022 portal entries and the
December 2023 Assessment Order fit together lies at the heart of the
factual dispute between the parties.
9. An earlier Notice dated 05.01.2023 demanded ₹19,79,170/-.
After the December 2023 Assessment, NDMC issued a bill dated
09.01.2024 for ₹2,66,27,563/-, of which ₹2,51,86,094/- was shown as
an ‘Additional Demand’. A Demand Notice for ₹2,66,27,580/-
followed on 01.02.2024, and on 18.03.2024 NDMC called upon the
Petitioner to make payment, failing which coercive recovery was
threatened. The Petitioner impugns each of these instruments.
10. On 22.03.2024, this Court stayed further coercive recovery on
the condition that the Petitioner deposit ₹19,79,170/- within two
weeks. The Petitioner states that this amount has been deposited.
Alongside the legality of the assessments, the Petitioner challenges
NDMC’s failure to explain how the additional demand was computed
and how his prior payments have been accounted for.
CONTENTIONS
11. Mr. M. A. Niyazi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner contends that the September 2023 Notice could not lawfully
support an enhancement for prior years. On the retrospective periods,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 4 of 11

he relies on the proviso to Section 72, the decisions concerning
delayed assessments, and Paragraph 89 of NDMC v. Association of
1
Concerned Citizens of New Delhi , concerning the protection
afforded to certain assessments made under the 2009 Bye-laws. On the
prospective valuation from 01.04.2023, he faults the comparison with
Shop No. 19-B, whose recorded rateable value is stated to be
₹79,70,400/-. He also submits that the Petitioner was denied an
effective hearing and that the defect in the assessment cannot be cured
by an arithmetical rectification. The Petitioner accordingly seeks
quashing of the impugned order or, alternatively, a fresh hearing on
his objections. He also invokes Section 64H(3), inserted by the Jan
Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 (‘the 2026
Amendment Act’).
12. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner’s remedy lies in a
statutory Appeal under Section 115. It questions the Petitioner’s
standing in view of the municipal ownership entries, defends the
valuation on the basis of reasonably expected annual rent, and disputes
the comparability of the properties cited by the Petitioner. The
Respondent relies on the hearing dates recorded in the assessment
order and the consideration of the Petitioner’s emailed submissions.
For the earlier periods, it relies on the Assessment Order dated
26.05.2022 produced during the hearing.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
13. Section 115 of the Act provides a comprehensive appellate
remedy before the District Judge against any levy or assessment of

1
(2019) 15 SCC 303
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 5 of 11

tax, encompassing both factual valuation and legality, with power
under Section 115(2) to refer questions of law to this Court. Sections
116 and 117 govern the conditions of appeal and the condonation of
delay upon showing sufficient cause.
14. The availability of a statutory appeal does not oust this Court’s
jurisdiction under Article 226. Ordinarily, the statutory remedy should
be pursued, but the Court may intervene in recognised exceptional
circumstances, including where the order is wholly without
jurisdiction or natural justice has been denied. These principles are
explained in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal
2
Pradesh . The withdrawal of the constitutional challenge does not
therefore dispose of the surviving grounds. Their nature and the relief
required must be considered in deciding whether this Court should
exercise its writ jurisdiction.
15. At the forefront is the Petitioner’s objection under Section 72,
which goes to statutory reach. The proviso to Section 72(1), as it stood
at the relevant time, reads as under:
“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.”
Section 72(2) required notice of the proposed amendment and
consideration of objections. Under the proviso, the Court must
distinguish between tax or an increase of tax arising by reason of the
impugned amendment and liability resting on an independently
operative earlier assessment.

2
(2021) 6 SCC 771
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 6 of 11

16. The dates specified in the 2023 Notice and the resulting
Assessment Order are plain on the face of those instruments. The
Assessment Order does not state that its historical entries are mere
illustrations without effect on liability. The Petitioner’s temporal
objection cannot, therefore, be brushed aside simply by labelling the
dispute one of valuation. At the same time, the May 2022 Order
purports to fix the rateable value at ₹62,10,000/- with effect from
01.04.2012. Whether that Order remained operative, and for which
periods, must be examined alongside the September 2022 portal
entries and the December 2023 assessment. Neither the production of
the May 2022 Order nor the subsequent entry of a lower rateable value
resolves that question without examining the underlying municipal
records.
17. The existence of an earlier assessment cannot enlarge the
temporal scope of the amendment proposed in September 2023. It
may, however, bear upon whether a component of the demand rests on
an independent prior assessment. NDMC has not supplied a period-
wise statement identifying which assessment supports each
component of the demand. The record before this Court therefore does
not permit a reliable determination of which components arose by
reason of the December 2023 amendment and which, if any, have an
independent basis. That inquiry is bound up with the disputed effect of
the September 2022 entries, the claimed protection of earlier
assessments, the prospective valuation, and the accounting of past
payments.
18. In these circumstances, these connected questions are best
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 7 of 11

examined together in a statutory appeal, and this Court declines to
adjudicate the surviving challenges under Article 226. No opinion is
expressed on the validity, service, or continuing effect of the order
dated 26.05.2022.
19. The additional demand nevertheless requires disclosure.
Paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit states its amount but does not
provide a period-wise derivation. The bill does not explain which
assessments support the components of ₹2,51,86,094/-, how earlier
charges have been treated, or how payments have been credited. The
Petitioner must have that information and the supporting orders to
pursue an effective challenge. Furnishing a calculation statement will
not cure any defect in the underlying assessment or determine the
objections to it.
20. Section 4 of the 2026 Amendment Act preserves remedies and
proceedings concerning past acts and accrued liabilities. The statutory
appeal concerning these assessments remains available, subject to
questions of limitation and the directions below.
21. Nothing in this judgment shall preclude the Petitioner from
invoking Section 64H(3), if otherwise available to him. Any such
application shall be considered independently by NDMC in
accordance with the conditions prescribed thereunder.
22. Prayer (b) seeks an inquiry into assessments of other Khan
Market properties. The Petitioner may rely on relevant comparative
material in support of his individual challenge before the statutory
forum. A market-wide inquiry is not necessary for that adjudication,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 8 of 11

and this Court declines to direct one in this petition. This does not
determine the lawfulness of the assessments of other properties or
reject the Petitioner’s grounds concerning his own assessment.
FINAL ORDER
23. The Petitioner is accordingly relegated to the statutory appellate
remedy in respect of the surviving challenges, subject to the following
directions:
i. Within fifteen days of receiving a copy of this judgment,
NDMC shall serve upon the Petitioner, through counsel, a
period-wise computation of the impugned demand, including the
additional demand of ₹2,51,86,094/-. For each period, the
statement shall specify the operative assessment order, rateable
value, tax rate, tax previously billed, additional tax, other
charges, payments and credits, and the resulting net balance. It
shall reconcile the Demand Notice dated 05.01.2023 with the
subsequent bill and recovery notices, verifying and crediting
without duplication all payments actually made, whether
voluntarily or under orders of this Court.
ii. Along with that computation, NDMC shall furnish
legible copies of every assessment order and notice relied upon to
sustain each component of the demand, including the assessment
order dated 26.05.2022 and the orders or decisions underlying the
portal entries dated 29.09.2022. If any such record is unavailable,
NDMC shall state that fact in its communication. Any request for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 9 of 11

further record production shall be addressed to the appellate
Court.
iii. If the Petitioner institutes an appeal concerning the
surviving challenges within four weeks of service of the
computation and documents directed above, the appellate Court
shall not reject it on the ground of limitation insofar as the delay
is attributable to the pendency of this writ petition or to the
interval between its disposal and expiry of that four-week period.
Any delay preceding institution of this writ petition shall be
considered independently under Section 117 in accordance with
law. The Petitioner is also at liberty to pursue such remedies
against the assessment order dated 26.05.2022 as are available in
law. This Court records no finding on its service, finality or the
limitation applicable to such a challenge.
iv. The appellate Court shall consider the statutory deposit
requirement in accordance with law, including the principles
3
discussed by this Court in Ved Marwah v. NDMC . It shall take
into account all amounts actually deposited with NDMC towards
the disputed liability, including any amount deposited pursuant to
the interim order dated 22.03.2024. This judgment does not
dispense with the applicable statutory deposit requirement.
v. Subject to the Petitioner having complied with the
deposit condition imposed on 22.03.2024, NDMC shall take no
coercive recovery steps pursuant to the impugned demands and
notices until four weeks after service of the computation and

3
2018:DHC:2055-DB
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 10 of 11

documents directed in clauses (a) and (b). If the Petitioner files
an appeal along with an application for interim relief within those
four weeks, this protection shall continue until the appellate
Court disposes of the interim application or the appeal itself,
whichever is earlier. The appellate Court may modify or vacate
this protection in accordance with law and is requested to take up
the preliminary and interim applications expeditiously.
24. Subject to the directions above, all contentions concerning the
legality, temporal operation and quantum of the surviving assessments
and demands, the protection claimed for earlier assessments, and the
parties’ objections to maintainability remain open before the
appropriate forum. Neither the prima facie observations recorded
during the pendency of this petition nor anything stated in this
judgment shall be construed as affirming the impugned assessments or
demands.
25. The present Writ Petition, along with pending applications,
stands disposed of in the above terms.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.


BHARAT PARASHAR, J.
OCTOBER 28, 2026
s.godara/ad

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:28.10.2026
14:08:59
W.P.(C) 4427/2024 Page 11 of 11