Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a transferee of a flat can be made liable for property tax for a period anterior to service of notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. (ii) Whether service of notice on the builder or transferor, and failure to intimate transfer under Section 128, protects the transferee from assessment and recovery of property tax.
Issue (i): Whether a transferee of a flat can be made liable for property tax for a period anterior to service of notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
Analysis: Property tax under the Act is levied on lands and buildings and constitutes a first charge on the property. The statutory scheme makes the tax attach to the property itself, while Section 120 identifies the person primarily liable and Section 126 regulates amendment of the assessment list. Section 128 specifically contemplates transfer of title and declares that the transferor remains liable until notice is given, but that such continued liability does not affect the transferee's liability. The transferee, for the purposes of the Act, is treated as the owner and cannot claim that liability is postponed merely because notice under Section 126 was served later. The proviso to Section 126 does not cut down the substantive liability that already travels with the property.
Conclusion: The transferee is liable for property tax even for the period prior to service of notice under Section 126, subject to the factual position whether an earlier valid assessment already existed.
Issue (ii): Whether service of notice on the builder or transferor, and failure to intimate transfer under Section 128, protects the transferee from assessment and recovery of property tax.
Analysis: The Act places a duty on the transferor and transferee to intimate the Corporation of transfer. Until such intimation is made, notices issued to the transferor remain valid and sufficient. The Corporation is not bound to search out transferees on its own, and the transferee cannot avoid liability by relying on the absence of notice to him where the transferor remained on record or where assessment had already been made. If a valid assessment was earlier made against the building or flat, that assessment continues to bind the property and can be recovered from both transferor and transferee; what Section 128 does is preserve the transferor's continuing liability, not extinguish the transferee's statutory obligation.
Conclusion: Notice to the transferor can be valid for assessment purposes, and failure to intimate transfer does not absolve the transferee from liability.
Final Conclusion: The legal position was clarified in favour of the Corporation on the substantive liability question, but the matter required factual examination as to whether an earlier valid assessment existed and whether the impugned assessment merely continued that levy; the orders below were therefore set aside and the appeal remitted for fresh disposal according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, property tax attaches to the land or building as a first charge, and a transferee remains liable for such tax notwithstanding non-service of notice under Section 126, because Section 128 preserves the transferee's liability and the Corporation may rely on notice to the transferor until transfer is intimated.