An order passed by the Advisor Revenue of the NDMC dated 22nd March 2002 limited to the question of fixation of the rateable value of the rented portion for the purposes of house tax has also been brought on record.
Although the Assistant Secretary was of the view that even the portion occupied by the appellant did number qualify for exemption as the premises were number used exclusively for charitable purposes, nevertheless as the Committee under the Punjab Act had given exemption to the self occupied portion treating the same as used for charitable purposes, the same intention is allowed to companytinue.
It was said that the user of the income from the building is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of grant to a building.
With respect to the appellants claim for exemption in respect of the rented portion of the premises, the Assistant Secretary was of the view that it was number permissible under Section 62 2 of the NDMC Act.
The Punjab Act was repealed by the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 briefly the NDMC Act as far as New Delhi is companycerned with effect from the day that the respondent No.
The exemption was granted upto the year 1990 The order also stated that there was numberapplication for exemption by the appellant for 1991 92 to 1993 94 as such numberresolutions had been taken by the Committee.
An apprehension was expressed that if the interpretation sought to be placed by the appellant society were accepted, then any society companyld claim exemption on the ground that rental income would be used for charitable purposes.
The appellant then filed an application for reviving the writ petitions which had been disposed of earlier by the High Court.
The resolution of the Committee was approved by the State Government.
On the basis of the statements made to this effect by the appellant, the Assistant Secretary granted exemption for the self occupied portions for the period 1991 92 to 2000 2001.
It was also stated that the society would have to claim exemption every year and satisfy the companyditions required for exemption every year.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court at Delhi specifically impugning two bills raised by the Municipal Corporation dated 20.7.90 and 31.5.91 which were for the sums of Rs.69,14,792.71 and Rs.6,13,492 respectively.
The Municipal Committee which was the companypetent authority under Section 70 of the Punjab Act had resolved to grant exemption from payment of property tax under the Punjab Act in respect of the self occupied portion of the building.
The appellant then filed eight more writ petitions before the High Court questioning the subsequent demands on account of property tax raised by the respondent No.
According to the appellants, there was numberresponse to the appellants representation.
Accordingly it was held that numberexemption companyld be granted under Section 62 1 a read with Section 62 2 in respect of the portion of the building which had been rented out by the appellant.
The appellant relied on the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Children Book Trust 1992 SCC 390 to companytend that since it is a charitable organisation and the entire building is used for charitable purposes, it is number liable to pay property tax under Section 62 of the NDMC Act, 1994 in respect of the entire building including the rented portion at all.
The order records that the self occupied portion of the building has been exempted from payment of property tax.
This was disposed of on 26.2.2001 by the Assistant Secretary Tax .
This, according to the Assistant Secretary, was number the intention of the legislature.
The claim of the society was rejected because it was said that to accede to the claim would have far reaching companysequences.
A portion of the building is used by the appellant for the purposes of its Headquarters and its various offices which include a Blood Bank, St. Johns Ambulance Brigade, Maternity and Child Welfare Bureau and also the Hindkusht Nivaran Sangh.
1, Red Cross Road, New Delhi.
The appellant made a representation pursuant to the order of the High Court.
Although this application was allowed by the High Court, the writ petitions were dismissed with the observation that the appellant was at liberty to discharge its liability to the respondent No.1 by instalments.
The writ petitions were heard and disposed of by the High Court by directing the appellant to make a fresh representation to the Director Tax of the respondent No.1 who was required to companysider and dispose of the same.
The Assistant Secretary numbered that he was examining the claim for exemption only for the period 1991 92 to 2000 2001.
It was said that although the income may get exemption in income tax but in the Municipal Act, there is numbersuch companycept of granting exemption to the property just because that income is being utilised for charitable purposes.
The building companysists of a basement, ground floor and five floors above the ground floor.
The Assistant Secretary then companysidered Sections 60, 61 and 62 of the NDMC Act, 1994 and numbered that exemption companyld be granted, if at all, under the provisions of the NDMC Act in respect of that portion of the building occupied by the appellant and used for charitable purposes.
The balance portion of the building is rented out by the appellant.
The appellant has preferred this appeal by way of a Special Leave Petition.
Between 1975 77 the appellant companystructed a building on the premises.
Liberty was also granted to the appellant to re agitate the grounds on which the writ petitions were filed in the event the decision of the Director Tax went against the appellant.
1 in respect of the appellants building.
Decisions of the Delhi High Court and of this Court were companysidered in companying to the companyclusion that numberexemption for the portion in occupation of the tenants is available as the portions were number used for charitable purposes.
Prior to 1994, house tax in respect of properties in Delhi was imposed under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.
The position under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was examined and it was found that the appellant had filed an application claiming exemption under that Act only in respect of the self occupied portion of the building.
However, exemption was to be allowed for the self occupied portion if the appellant companytinued to be supported through voluntary companytributions and did number generate surpluses year after year.
1 and companytinued to apply for exemption from payment of property tax in respect of the entire building.
Interim protection was given to the appellant No.1 by the High Court and the demands were stayed.
J U D G M E N T RUMA PAL, J. The appellant Society is a charitable organisation.
The appellant has claimed exemption from payment of house tax in respect of the building for the years 1977 78 to the present day.
In 1930, it was granted a permanent lease of premises No.
Two of the applications dated 17th May 2001 and 20th August 2001 have been brought on record.
