Case Law Details
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
The MCD, through its Standing Counsel, vehemently opposed the appellant’s request, relying on previous judicial interventions concerning a similar amnesty scheme floated in 2023.
Key Judicial Precedents Cited:
- W.P.(C) 6420/2013 & batch (Delhi High Court Coordinate Bench, Order dated 02.02.2023): In this batch of petitions challenging a similar amnesty scheme, a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court had previously granted an interim direction. The court directed the MCD to accept the requisite amount payable by the petitioners “without insistence on furnishing an affidavit containing inter alia an averment to the effect that they would withdraw their respective writ actions.”
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumar Nahata (Supreme Court, SLP (Civil) Diary No.32410/2023, Order dated 25.08.2023): The MCD had challenged the Delhi High Court’s interim order dated February 02, 2023 (from the W.P.(C) 6420/2013 & batch case) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, vide its order dated August 25, 2023, had issued notice and restrained the operation of the interim order passed by the Coordinate Bench.
The MCD argued that in light of the Supreme Court’s injunction restraining the operation of an identical interim direction, no similar order could be passed in the present case.
Policy Decision Argument
The MCD further submitted that the terms of the Amnesty Scheme are a policy decision and constitute a voluntary offer to assessees as a one-time measure for tax collection. The MCD stated there is no compulsion to avail the Scheme. It relied on the Supreme Court’s observation in Satyakam Arya vs. Union of India & Anr. (W.P.(C) 178/2021, Order dated 04.03.2021), where the Supreme Court held that the Amnesty Scheme (in that case, GST) lies in the realm of policy intervention by the government, and the terms on which the Scheme is granted are matters of policy requiring no interference by the Court, particularly on the methodology or manner of taxation.
Court’s Holding
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court acknowledged that it was initially inclined to grant interim directions allowing the deposit of the property tax as calculated by the MCD, subject to the outcome of the underlying writ petition.
However, the Court was compelled to note the order of the Supreme Court dated August 25, 2023, which restrained the operation of the identical interim direction previously passed by a Coordinate Bench.
The Court held that, having regard to the injunction issued by the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to pass the directions sought by the appellant. The Court, therefore, found no merits in the appeal, and it was dismissed along with pending applications, with no order as to costs.
The Delhi High Court explicitly clarified that its decision was based on the Supreme Court’s restraining order and that it made no observations on the merits of the matter, leaving the parties at liberty to raise all contentions before the learned Single Judge in the underlying writ petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 14836/2025 whereby the interim prayer of the appellant seeking permission to deposit the property tax as calculated by the MCD under the Amnesty Scheme, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the outcome of the underlying writ petition, was not granted.
2. Kamal Gupta, learned counsel appears for the appellant and states that the only prayer sought before this Court and which was not granted by the learned Single Judge in the underlying writ petition is, that the appellant be permitted to deposit the quantum of property tax as per the calculations made by the MCD under the One Time Property Tax Amnesty Scheme 2025-26 called Sumpattikar Niptaan Yojana (SUNIYO) notified by the respondent/MCD, subject to the outcome of the underlying writ petition. He submits that the prayer is made on an urgent basis inasmuch as the Amnesty Scheme as notified would expire on 30.09.2025.
3. He states that as per the calculations made by the MCD, the property tax which is calculated under the said Amnesty Scheme comes to three times the tax amount as calculated by the appellant. He states that in case the appellant complies with the deposit of property tax to be made under the Amnesty Scheme and simultaneously withdraws all the pending litigations including the underlying writ petition, the question of whether the calculations made by the MCD Portal or the appellant are correct or incorrect, shall not be available to the appellant, causing irreparable injury and financial loss to it. He submits that in case the appellant is permitted to deposit the amount as calculated by the MCD under the Amnesty Scheme subject to the outcome of the underlying writ petition, two purposes would be served. One, that MCD would have received the property tax which, according to it, is the correct amount and as such, would be secure to that extent and; two, that the redressal of the grievances of the appellant to the extent of calculation of the property tax due under the Amnesty Scheme would still be available for the learned Single Judge to decide. According to him, neither party would be at loss.
4. Learned counsel also submits that the previous writ petitions filed by the appellant challenging Show Cause Notice/Assessment Orders passed by the MCD and pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge would also be withdrawn in terms of the conditions in the Amnesty Scheme, except the underlying writ petition. He states that the learned Single Judge did not consider the aforesaid proposition, constraining the appellant to approach this Court.
5. Per Contra, Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned Standing Counsel for the MCD vehemently opposes the submissions of the appellant. He states that on a previous occasion, a similar Amnesty Scheme floated by the MCD in the year 2023, was challenged by some assessees on similar grounds vide P.(C) 6420/2013 & batch. Vide order dated 02.02.2023, a Coordinate Bench in para 6 had passed interim directions in the said batch which reads thus:-
“6. In these circumstances, the Corporation will accept the requisite amount payable by each of the petitioners, without insistence on furnishing an affidavit containing inter alia an averment to the effect that they would withdraw their respective writ actions.”
6. He states that the MCD had challenged the said order dated 02.02.2023, particularly the observations in para 6 noted above of the Coordinate Bench, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.32410/2023 titled Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumar Nahata. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.08.2023 had issued notice and restrained from operation, the interim order dated 02.02.2023 referred to above. In these circumstances, learned counsel submits that no interim order as sought by the appellant can be passed having regard to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. That apart, learned counsel for MCD also submits that the terms of the Amnesty Scheme are not questionable since it is a policy decision and is only an offer to the assessees as a one-time measure. He dilates further by stating that there is no compulsion upon the assessees to avail of this Scheme and it is a one-time benefit formulated by the MCD for the purposes of collection of tax. He submits that under the Scheme, the MCD is only reckoning property tax for the current year i.e. 2025-26 and previous five years with the condition that all the dues prior to the year FY 2020-21 including interest and penalty will stand waived off. He submits that in these circumstances, the Amnesty Scheme being a policy decision, cannot be interfered with by this Court, particularly on the methodology or manner of taxation. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyakam Arya vs. Union of India & Anr. bearing W.P.(C) 178/2021 whereby vide order dated 04.03.2021, the petitioner therein sought certain reliefs qua the GST Amnesty Scheme dated 24.05.2020. He states that in para 3 of the said order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically observed that the Amnesty Scheme itself lies in the realm of a policy intervention by the Union Government and that the terms on which the said Scheme has been granted are matters of policy requiring no interference by the Court.
8. We have heard Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant as also Mr. Sannu, learned Standing Counsel for the MCD.
9. At the initial stage, we were inclined to grant interim directions to the extent of directing the appellant to deposit the property tax under the aegis of the Amnesty Scheme in the manner as calculated by the MCD, however, subject to the outcome of the underlying writ petition. However, we are compelled to note the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) 6420/2013 & batch as also the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP restraining the operation of the interim directions passed in the order dated 02.02.2023 of the Coordinate bench. In these circumstances, having regard to the aforesaid injunction, it may not be appropriate to pass the aforesaid directions as sought by the appellant.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405. We are unable to appreciate as to for what proposition the appellant is placing reliance on the said judgment.
11. In that view of the matter, and since the challenge in the appeal was only limited to the aforesaid extent, we find no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, without any order as to costs.
12. We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter and parties are at liberty to raise all contentions before the learned Single Judge in the underlying writ petition.
Author Bio
