Kharghar Co-op. Housing Societies Federation Ltd Vs Municipal Commissioner (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court in the matter of property tax didn’t entertain the petition as effective and effacious remedy of filing an appeal under section 406 of the MMC Act available with the petitioner.
Facts- Petitioner No.1 claims to be a federation of co-operative housing societies constituted for welfare of the residents of Kharghar Node which is an area in Navi Mumbai.
This petition concerns levy of municipal taxes in relation to only one area of the PMC called Kharghar Node. The infrastructure of the Kharghar Node was developed and maintained by the City Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) which was constituted as a “New Town Development Authority”, for the area constituting the twin city, Navi Mumbai.
The challenge as mounted in this petition is quite peculiar, namely to the property tax bills, issued by the PMC to the co-operative societies who are stated to be the members of petitioner No.1. As noted above, the entire exercise relating to the assessment in question from the date the PMC was constituted, has culminated into the assessment and levy of the property taxes and the bills in question being issued.
Thus, only substantive prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to cancel the bills and demand notices issued for levying retrospective tax since October, 2016 to 2021 – 2022 to individual members and societies of petitioner No.1.
Conclusion- The relevant provisions of MMC Act read with the Rules, creates a robust statutory mechanism not only in respect of everything leading to the levy and collection of taxes but also providing for a specific statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 406 of the MMC Act of an appeal being provided, if a person is aggrieved by the fixation of a rateable value or capital value or ‘tax fixed’ or ‘charged’ under MMC Act, to be assailed in such appeal, which is to be filed before the Judge as defined under Section 2(29) of the MMC Act.
A public body like the respondent-PMC cannot be placed in a cloud of such uncertainty when it comes to levy and recovery of municipal taxes. Thus, entertaining this petition would open floodgates of litigation before this Court. This more particularly, as none of the grounds as raised in the petition impresses us, so as to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction by permitting these assessees to bypass the remedy of a statutory appeal. This apart, entertaining such petitions would also send a wrong signal to the other municipal corporations/ municipalities in the State of Maharashtra, that in matters of challenge to property taxes, an enmass plea of the nature as in the present case can be entertained. We do not intend to subscribe to any such impression or set up an example as being canvassed by the petitioner that on every possible aspect in regard to the municipal taxation, the matter should come to the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction. It is always the discretion of the Court whether to entertain a writ petition and exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution considering the facts and circumstances of the case. We have accordingly exercised our discretion in the facts of the present case, not to entertain this petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The judgment has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis:
