2015 (1) TMI 1164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome Tax Act, 1961. The respondent No.1/Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') vide para 6(g) of the Notifications dated 10.10.2008 and 23.12.2008 levied additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) charges for institutional plots, i.e., including hospital plots and 50% of the updated Zonal market rate of institutional properties for those disposed of by auction and for those properties which were allotted to private parties as well. However, the same is not applicable to those institutions which were allotted land @ Rs. 1 for whom no such charges is recommended. 2. Para 6(g) of the aforementioned Notifications was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, lead matter being W.P.(C) No. 9572/2009 titled a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....012, passed by the DDA, is clarificatory in nature and its operation is retrospective, therefore, the impugned order dated 23.04.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that the Notifications dated 10.10.2008 and 23.12.2008, being prospective in nature, is liable to be quashed. 6. Consequently, seeks direction against the respondent No.2/SDMC to refund a sum of Rs. 13,17,32,564/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum in its favour. 7. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in W.P.(C) No.1149/2013 decided on 22.11.2013, this Court clarified that though while allowing the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 20.07.2012....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng, meaningfully read, has treated the notification dated July 17, 2012 as retrospective and thus the respondent in LPA No. 107/2014 and the writ petitioners in the three captioned writ petitions would be entitled to succeed on three distinct and independent reasons. Firstly, parity with the writ petitioners of the various writ petitions which were allowed on July 20, 2012, which decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Secondly, on the doctrine of fairness adopted by the Supreme Court in Indian Tobacco Association's case (supra) and Vijay's case (supra). Thirdly, that the notification dated July 17, 2012 has to be given a retrospective operation." 9. Being aggrieved, the DDA challenged the aforesaid decision before the Supreme Court ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e aforesaid Notification and accepted the same without any protest. Therefore, the cases relied upon by the petitioner have no bearing to the present case. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 14. Keeping in view the decisions taken by this Court in the cases cited by the petitioner as noted above, which have been testified upto the Supreme Court of India, the issue raised is no more res integra. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner is registered as a Trust and enjoying a tax exemption under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, applying the doctrine of parity, the petitioner herein being similarly situated of the petitioners whose cases have been allowed by this Court, the petitioner is also entitled for ....