P.P. International School Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Delhi High Court)
The case of P.P. International School Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi before the Delhi High Court concerned a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by P.P. International School (the appellant) challenging an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge. The core issue was whether the appellant could be permitted to deposit the property tax amount calculated by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under the One Time Property Tax Amnesty Scheme 2025-26 (called Sumpattikar Niptaan Yojana – SUNIYO), subject to the outcome of the underlying writ petition, without fulfilling the Scheme’s mandatory condition of withdrawing all pending litigations.
Appellant’s Contention
The appellant sought an interim direction to deposit the property tax as calculated by the MCD under the SUNIYO scheme, which was expiring on September 30, 2025. The MCD’s calculation was noted to be three times the amount calculated by the appellant. The appellant argued that if it complied fully with the Scheme’s terms, including the withdrawal of all pending litigations (including the underlying writ petition), it would lose the ability to challenge the MCD’s property tax calculation, which would cause “irreparable injury and financial loss.”
The appellant proposed a middle ground:
- Permitting the deposit of the tax amount calculated by the MCD under the Scheme.
- Allowing the underlying writ petition (challenging the calculation methodology) to continue.
- The appellant was willing to withdraw all previous pending litigations challenging Show Cause Notices/Assessment Orders in terms of the Amnesty Scheme, but not the current writ petition challenging the Scheme’s application/calculation itself.
- The appellant contended this approach would serve two purposes: the MCD would secure the property tax amount it claimed was due, and the appellant would retain the right to have its grievance regarding the calculation methodology decided by the Single Judge.
Respondent’s (MCD) Opposition and Judicial Precedents
