TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Toll Tax & ECC Agreement is ultra vires Section 113 (2) (g) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 to the extent it contemplates payment of amount by the petitioner to the respondent no. l in excess of the toll tax actually collected by the petitioner; c. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make a fresh assessment as to the circumstances affecting toll collection taking into account the circumstances highlighted by the petitioner and reassess and re-determine the annual/ weekly amount payable by the petitioner to the SDMC towards toll tax; d. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take into consideration the change in circumstances make suitable downward revision in the weekly/ annual remittance commensurate with the reduction in toll tax paying commercial vehicles and taking into account the tax leakages on account of free lanes; e. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 18.11.2019 issued by the respondent to the petitioner for payment of Rs. 450.6973 crores. f. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the demand of .1 % per day that is 36.5% per annum in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner. The committee on 17.10.2019 is said to have made a recommendation and approved that a sum of Rs. 18,98,54,798/- be reduced from the outstanding claim made by the respondent of Rs.446,46,55,359/-. 6. On 18.11.2019, the respondent has issued a demand notice to the petitioner asking them to deposit a sum of Rs. 450.69 crores and the penalty amount of .1% per day i.e. 36.5% per annum within a period of seven days failing which action shall be taken for revocation of the bank guarantee and post dated cheques. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged as follows:- (i) He has urged that as is apparent from the minutes of the meeting noted above, there has been a reduction of at least 30% in the traffic on the opening of the Eastern peripheral Expressway. This has further reduced on the opening of the Western Peripheral Expressway. Hence, he submits that the petitioner cannot be made to pay toll tax which they have not been collecting and will not be able to collect given the volume of traffic that is passing through various toll booths. (ii) It is further pleaded that on 04.06.2018, a direction was issued by the respondent not to collect toll t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he requirement of the Agreement, or disputes any record or decision given in writing by the Competent officer in any matter in connection with or arising out of the Agreement, to be unacceptable, it shall promptly within (15) days request the Competent Officer in writing to give his instructions or decision 1 in respect of the same. Thereupon, the competent Officer shall give his written instruction or decision within a period of (30) days for the receipt of the Contractor's Letter. 16.3 If the Competent Officer fails to give his instructions or decision in writing within the aforesaid period or if the Contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the Competent Officer, the Contractor may, within (15) days of receipt of Competent Officer's instruction or decision, appeal to the Commissioner, SDMC who shall afford an opportunity to the Contractor to be heard, if the later so desires, and to offer evidence in support of its appeal. The Commissioner, SDMC shall give his decision in writing within (30) days of receipt of Contractor's appeal which shall be acceptable to the Contractor." 11. It is manifest from the above that a procedure has been incorpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Administrative Law, ibid., p. 448). In India, this Court has consistently taken the view that a quasi-judicial or administrative decision rendered in violation of the audi alteram partem rule, wherever it can be read as an implied requirement of the law, is null and void (e.g. Maneka Gandhi case [1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL)] and S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1970) 2 WLR 1009 : (1970) 2 All ER 528 (CA)] ). In the facts and circumstances of the instant ease, there has been a non-compliance with such implied requirement of the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice at the pre-decisional stage. The impugned order therefore, could be struck down as invalid on that score alone. But we refrain from doing so, because the learned Solicitor-General in all fairness, has both orally and in his written submissions dated August 28, 1979, committed himself to the position that under Section 18-F, the Central Government in exercise of its curial functions, is bound to give the affected owner of the undertaking taken-over, a "full and effective hearing on all aspects touching the validity and/or correctness of the order and/or action/of take over", within a reasonable time after the tak....