Bombay High Court
Afton Chemical India Private Ltd. vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 September, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:41290-DB 11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5952 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11791 OF 2025
Afton Chemical India Private Limited,
Lotus Corporate Park-A, Wing Unit 701/702,
Graham, Firth Steel Compound, Western Express
Highway, Mumbai-400 063. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Panvel Municipal Corporation
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Panvel Municipal Corpn.
4. The Commissioner, Panvel Municipal Corpn. Respondents
_______
Mr.Jas Sanghavi i/by PDS Legal for Petitioner.
Mr.A.I.Patel, Additional Govt.Pleader, with Mr.Y.D.Patil, AGP for Respondent
no.1 State.
Mr.Sandip D.Ghaterao, Advocate for Respondent nos.2 to 4.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
Date of Reservin the Judgment : 18th September 2025
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 26th September 2025
JUDGMENT (Per : Aarti Sathe, J.) :
-
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenges the assessment orders referred in the petition (hereinafter referred to as
`impugned orders') passed by Respondent no.3 under Rule 33(3) of Maharashtra
Municipal Corporation (Local Body Tax) Rules, 2010 read with Maharashtra
Municipal Corporation, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `LBT Rules') for the period
1st January 2017 to 31st March 2018, inter alia, directing the Petitioner to pay
MANISH MANISH
SURESHRAO SURESHRAO THATTE
Date: 2025.09.29
THATTE 19:13:58 +0530
Rs.18,23,731/- being purported Local Body Tax (`LBT') payable along with interest
of Rs.2,69,760/- and Rs.18,23,730/- imposed under Rule 48(3)(a) and 48(3)(b) of
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
LBT respectively, totaling to Rs.39,17,230/-. It also assails an order dated 30 th July
2018 passed by Respondent no.3 under Rule 33(3) of Rules directing the
Petitioner to pay LBT for a further period of 1 st April 2017 to 31st June 2017 of an
amount of Rs78,18,030/-. By the impugned order a penalty under Rule 48(2)(c)
(iii) and under Rule 48(6) is sought to be levied, however, the same has been
deferred. Similar orders as impugned were passed in the case of Afton Chemical
Hyderabad Private Limited which was merged/amalgamated with the Petitioner
under the orders passed by the National Companies Law Tribunal, Hyderabad
(hereinafter referred to as `NCLT') order dated 15th September 2017 (Exh.`C' to the
petition).
2. In Company Petition bearing No.CP(CAA) No.88/230/HDB/2017,
both the Petitioner and Afton Chemical Hyderbad Pvt.Ltd filed a joint application
for amalgamation under section 230 and 232 and other applicable provisions of
the Companies Act, 2013 before the NCLT, Hyderabad. By an order dated 15 th
September 2017, the NCLT allowed the appeal, inter alia, allowing the
amalgamation of these two entities. The appointed date of the said amalgamation
was fixed as 1st April 2016. Resultant company after the to the said amalgamation
was named as Afton Chemical Hyderabad Private Limited. Further the LBT
Registration of the erstwhile Afton Chemical Hyderabad Private Limited viz.
PMC/LBT-TIN/0/Z4/04/NRD was retained.
3. Thereafter, the amalgamated entity filed an application for change of
name before the Registrar of Companies (RoC-Hyderabad) and subsequently
obtained a certificate of incorporation pursuant to change of name dated 2 nd
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
January 2018 wherein the name of the company was changed from Afton Chemical
Hyderabad Private Limited to Afton Chemical India Private Limited i.e. the
Petitioner. For the purpose of LBT, the registration number remained the same i.e.
PMC/LBT-TIN/0/Z4/04/NRD.
4. The Petitioner vide letter dated 15th January 2018 submitted their Audit
Report sheet for financial year 2016-17 which was shared with the Respondent
no.2. The note 42 of the said audit report provided the description of the
amalgamation carried out pursuant to the order dated 15 th September 2017 passed
by the NCLT. In pursuance of the impugned assessment orders, demand notices
dated 20th February 2023 for the period 1 st June 2017 to 31st March 2017 and 1st
April 2017 to 30th June 2017 have also been issued to the Petitioner. Demand
notices were also issued to Afton Chemical Hyderabad Pvt.Ltd for the aforesaid
period (hereinafter referred to as `impugned notices'). The Petitioner is primarily
challenging the aforesaid impugned orders and the notices issued in pursuance
thereof.
5. The Petitioner is, inter alia, stated to be engaged in the manufacture
and sale of products meeting specific customer needs in the field of metal working,
metal treatment and anti-corrosion and trading in highly formulated lubricant and
fuel additives. In the ordinary course of business the Petitioner procures the
additives (hereinafter referred to as the goods) from areas which are outside the
municipal limits of Panvel. The said goods are imported at Nhava Sheva Port,
which are then duty paid, cleared, transported and stored by the Petitioner in it's
warehouse. Based on the customer demands the goods are either relabelled or
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
repacked into required quantities and transported to the various customer
locations. While some of the goods are sold locally, the balance of the goods are
stored in the warehouse of the Petitioner and then transported out of the municipal
limits of Panvel.
6. The Petitioner regularly filed its returns with Respondent no.2 and for
the relevant period i.e. period from 1 st January 2017 to 31st March 2017 and for the
period 1st April 2017 to 31st June 2017, which is the period under consideration in
the present petition, the Petitioner filed its return of income on 15 th January 2018
and 25th January 2018 respectively. For the goods sold locally, the Petitioner
discharged its LBT liability for the relevant period. The Petitioner under such
returns filed for the relevant period, paid an additional amount of Rs.1,89,468/- as
LBT which becomes refundable as per the Petitioner's contention.
7. The Petitioner submitted all the details and documents as called upon
by Respondent no.3 for the purpose of assessment under Rule 33(3) of LBT Rules.
On consideration of all materials the Respondent no.3 passed the impugned orders
levying LBT on the Petitioner to pay the amount as quantified in the impugned
orders. The Petitioner has, accordingly, challenged the impugned assessment
orders and the consequent impugned notices.
8. Respondent no.3 passed the impugned order under Rule 33(3) of the
LBT read with Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred
as `MMC Act'). The said impugned orders are ex-parte orders, inasmuch as barring
a couple of dates the Petitioner's representative did not attend the aforesaid
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
hearing. The Respondent no.3 therefore proceeded to pass an ex-parte order. The
following findings were recorded :
"Total value of goods received in PMC area is determined at
Rs.22,77,82,373/-. Purchases liable for LBT comes at
Rs.22,77,82,373/-, which are taxed @ 2.5%, 3.5% as shown in the
body of assessment order. Total tax payable comes to
Rs.79,36,540/-. Local Body Tax is paid by the dealer which is
allowed as Rs.8,55,561/-. Balance net LBT payable comes to
Rs.70,80,979/- as the dealer has paid the LBT after the due date
interest U/R 48(3)(a)(i) is levied at Rs.34,222/-.. Interest U/R
48(3)(b) is levied on differential dues from end of financial year to
the date of assessment order but not exceeding 50 months @ 2% is
levied at Rs.70,80,978/-, penalty U/R 48(2)(c)(iii). For the
deferential dues of Net Tax at the time of assessment order is
deferred for want of hearing. Penalty will be imposed after giving
you opportunity of hearing as per provision of law.
Total LBT payable comes to Rs.1,41,96,179/-. Issue demand
notice accordingly."
9. All the impugned orders are similarly worded except for change in
figures of the LBT payable (Exh.A1 to Exh.A4 of the petition). As stated above, in
pursuance of the impugned orders, impugned notices were issued to the Petitioner.
10. It is the Petitioner's contention that the impugned notices and the
impugned orders have been passed without proper jurisdiction as the charging
provision of MMC which is sought to be applied to the Petitioner, is not at all
attracted. The Petitioner has made several submissions, more particularly as raised
in their grounds to the petition, challenging the very imposition and levy of the
LBT and also the consequent passing of the impugned orders and notices. It is the
Petitioner's contention that the said levy of LBT is not attracted in view of
provisions of Section 127(2)(aaa) of MMC Act, inasmuch as the said section
contemplates that levy is on the entry of the goods in to the limits of the city for
consumption, use or sale therein. Therefore entry of the goods ought to be
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
coupled with consumption, use or sale therein. The Petitioner's contention is that
in the present case there was no consumption, use or sale of goods attracting levy of
LBT. The Petitioner also contends that the aforesaid levy of LBT on the said goods
which are neither consumed, used or sold and merely stored, are beyond the
powers granted under Entry No.52, List II (State List) of Schedule 7 of
Constitution of India. The Petitioner has also raised other contentions in support
of it's contention that levy of LBT and the consequent impugned notices are liable
to be quashed and set aside and refund of an amount of Rs.1,89,468/- along with
interest be paid to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has further in the grounds of
petition raised a challenge in respect of vires of the provisions of Rule 48 of the
MMC Act.
11. At the outset learned counsel for the Respondent no.2-Panvel
Municipal Corporation has raised an objection to the maintainability of this
petition on the ground that an alternate remedy of an appeal is available to the
Petitioner under the provisions of Section 406(6) of the MMC Act. The provisions
of Section 406 of MMC Act read as follows :
"Section 406. Appeals when and to whom to lie.
1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any
rateable value [or the capital value, as the case may be,] or tax fixed or
charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge.
2) No such appeal [shall be entertained] unless-
(a) it is brought within fifteen days after the accrual of the cause of
complaint;
(b) in the case of an appeal against a rateable value [or the capital value, as
the case may be,] a complaint has previously been made to the
Commissioner as provided under this Act and such complaint has been
disposed of ;
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
(c) in the case of an appeal against any tax [including interest and penalty
imposed] in respect of which provision exists under this Act for a
complaint to be made to the Commissioner against the demand, such
complaint has previously been made and disposed of ;
(d) in the case of an appeal against any amendment made in the
assessment book for property taxes during the official year, a complaint has
been made by the person aggrieved within [twenty-one days] after he first
received notice of such amendment and his complaint has been disposed
of ;
(e) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made
against a rateable value [or the capital value, as the case may be] [the
amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of
the tax chargeable on the basis of the dispute rateable value up to the date
of filing the appeal, has been deposited by the appellant with the
Commissioner].
2A) Where the appeal is not filed in accordance with the provisions of
clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (2), it shall be liable to be summarily
dismissed.
3) In the case of any appeal entertained by the Judge, but not heard by
him, before the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporations (Amendment) Act, 1975, the Judge shall not hear and
decide such appeal unless the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the
appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed
rateable value, as the case may be, up to the date of filing the appeal has
been deposited by the appellant with Commissioner, within thirty days
from the date of publication of a general notice by the Commissioner in
this behalf in the local news-papers. The Commissioner shall
simultaneously serve on each such appellant a notice under sections 473
and 474 and other relevant provisions of this Act, for intimating the
amount to be deposited by the appellant with him.
4) As far as possible, within fifteen days from the expiry of the period of
thirty days prescribed under sub-section (3), the Commissioner shall
intimate to the Judge the names and other particulars of the appellants
who have deposited with him the required amount within the prescribed
period and the names and other particulars of the appellants who have not
deposited with him such amount within such period. On receipt of such
intimation, the judge shall summarily dismiss the appeal of any appellant
who has not deposited the required amount with the Commissioner
within the prescribed period.
5) In the case of any appeal, which may have been entertained by the
Judge before the date of commencement of the Act aforesaid or which may
be entertained by him on and after the said date, the Judge shall not hear
and decide such appeal, unless the amount of the tax claimed by each of
the bills, which may have been issued since the entertainment of the
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
appeal, is also deposited, from time to time, with the Commissioner in the
first month of the half year to which the respective bill relates. In case of
default by the appellant at any time before the appeal is decided, on
getting an intimation to that effect from the Commissioner, the Judge shall
summarily dismiss the appeal.]
6) An appeal against the demand notice in respect of levy of cess under
Chapter XIA or the Local Body Tax under Chapter XIB shall lie,-
(i) to the Deputy Commissioner, when the demand notice is
raised by the Cess Officer or any other officer, not being the Deputy
Commissioner.
(ii) to the Commissioner, when the demand notice is raised by
the Deputy Commissioner.
7) The appeal under sub-section (6) shall be filed within fifteen days
from the date of the demand notice.
8) No appeal under sub-section 96) shall be entertained by the Deputy
Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Commissioner unless the
amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant has been deposited
by the appellant with the Commissioner.
(emphasis supplied)
12. On a plain reading of sub-clause 6 of Section 406 of the MMC Act, it is
clear that an appeal against the demand notice against levy of cess under Chapter-
XIA or the LBT under Chapter-XIB shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner when
the demand notice is raised by the Cess Officer or any other officer, not being the
Deputy Commissioner and to the Commissioner when the demand notice is raised
by the Deputy Commissioner. It is also provided that the said appeal shall be filed
within a period of fifteen days from the date of demand notice. The appeal shall be
entertained by the Deputy Commissioner or as the case may be by the
Commissioner only once the amount of the disputed tax claimed by the Appellant
has been deposited by the Appellant with the Commissioner. It was therefore
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
submitted that once an appeal has been provided under the MMC Act, then
necessarily the Petitioner needs to take recourse to the said statutory remedy and
not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the impugned orders and the impugned notices
by filing the present petition.
13. Learned counsel for the Respondent Municipal Corporation in support
of the aforesaid contentions has also drawn the Court's attention to four judgments
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court namely :
(i) Kokuto Camlin Limited Vs. The State of Maharashtra
(W.P.No.4309/2023, decided on 10-8-2023);
(ii) Pidilite Industries Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
(W.P.No.3480/2022, decided on 20-6-2023);
(iii) Kharghar Co-op.Hsg. Society Federation Ltd. Vs. Panvel
Municipal Corporation (W.P.No.8586/2021, decided on 6-4-2023);
(iv) Svizera Labs Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
(W.P.No.2118/2015, decided on 20-2-2018)
to contend that in the context of the very provision namely Section 406 of MMC
Act, this Court considering the position in law has taken a view that it would not
be an acceptable practice to permit bypassing a statutory remedy of appeal as
provided under section 406of MMC Act and invoke the writ remedy.
14. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is clear that a
statutory appeal itself lies from the impugned orders and notices before the
appropriate authority as envisaged under section 406(6) of MMC Act. It is also
clear from the decisions which have been rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court, that this Court has consistently taken a view that when a statutory appeal is
provided under the MMC Act, it is an efficacious alternate remedy as provided
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
under the statute i.e. the MMC Act. In such event invocation of the writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be
resorted. In any event, adjudication of the statutory appeal in the present
circumstances involves determination of some factual aspects as well, which
necessarily falls within the domain of the statutory appellate authority.
15. In such context it will be relevant here to extract the relevant paragraphs
of a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10 th August 2023
in the case of Kokuyo Camlin Limited Vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra).
"15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having noted
the legislative scheme of the MMC Act in relation to the levy and
collection of LBT, we may observe that the municipal taxation in
regard to the levy and recovery of the LBT is part of a well defined
statutory scheme, which is a Code by itself. The question would be
whether the petition has made out any exceptional case so as to be
made an exception from deviating the statutory scheme and
discipline as may be legitimately required in entertaining the present
petition. Considering the case as averred by the petitioner in the
petitioner, as also argued before us, we are of the clear opinion that at
this stage of the proceedings we are not inclined to examine the vires
of sub-section 152D of the MMC Act, as challenged by the
petitioner as prayed for in prayer clause (a). This for the reason that
we are of the clear opinion that what was questioned by the
petitioner are primarily the assessment orders, which is clear from
the reading of prayer clause (b) of the petition. Illustratively prayer
clause (b) of the petition reads thus :
"(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction for calling for the records
of the present case and after going through the legality and
validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the
Assessment order dated 13/3/2023 for the period 2016-17 as
per Exhibit-A raising total demand of Rs.2,71,36,506/-.
16. It would quite justified for us in taking such view considering
the clear averments as made in the memo of petition in paragraph
5(f) when the petitioner takes a position contrary to the well settled
principles of law, i.e. when the petitioner contends that the provision
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
of not allowing filing of a statutory appeal without deposit of the
disputed tax is arbitrary, harsh and irrational (when the validity of
the said provision of pre-deposit has already been upheld. Also
when the petitioner clearly avers in the petition that it is difficult for
the petitioner to pay the entire amount of disputed ta to maintain
the appeal, and for such reason this petition is filed. The averments
as made are already noted by us in paragraph 9 above.
17. In our opinion, such contentions as urged by the petitioner are
also contrary to the observations of the Division Bench of this Court
in case Kharghar Co-op.Housing Societies (supra) when in the
context of payment of municipal taxes the Division Bench referring
to the provisions of section 406 and considering the several decisions
of the Supreme Court in Shivram Poddar Vs. Income Tax Officer,
Central Circle-II, Calcutta and anr., Income Tax Officer Lucknow
Vs. M/s.S.B.Singar Singh & Sons and anr; Assistant Collector of
Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd
& Ors; M/s.Godrej Sara LEE Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation
Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and ors has held that the petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the assessment and
demand order ought not to be entertained and the proper remedy
would be to challenge the assessment order by taking recourse to the
statutory remedy of an appeal. Such decision is squarely applicable in
the facts of the present case, as contention of the petitioner is similar
to one considered by the Division Bench in Kharghar Co-
op.Housing Societies' case (supra). The relevant observations of the
Division Bench are required to be noted which read thus :-
"36. Be that as it may, we would also consider as to
whether the grounds on which the present petition has
been filed, in any manner are precluded to be raised, in
such statutory appeal. As noted above, primarily the
grounds as raised by the petitioners in the present petition
are, firstly, non-adherance to the provisions of law in
assessment and levy of property taxes which is quite
vague, secondly, no authority to levy retrospective tax and
thirdly, principles of natural justice not being followed.
37. We are not impressed with any of the grounds as
urged by the petitioner so as to pursuade us to entertan
this petition and/or to come to a conclusion, that the
petitioners be permitted to by-pass the statutory remedy
made available by law to persons who are aggrieved and
who intend to assail the property tax bills. All these
grounds are certainly grounds which can be raised by the
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
petitioners in a statutory appeal under Section 406 of
MMC Act. In our opinion, the grounds as raised by the
petitioner in fact can be more effectively raised, only by
taking recourse to the statutory remedy of an appeal, as
each of the assessees would be required to prove on
evidence, that the PMC in issuing individual bills in
respect to each of these assesses, has not acted in
accordance with the provisions of law and/or that in
respect of such assesses there was a breach of principles of
natural justice. We may also observe that all these are
issues which are purely subjective and which are required
to be individually adjudicated before the appellate
authority. On a deeper scrutiny, it would certainly not be
possible for this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in such
blanket manner, examine these issues, albeit camouflaged
by the petitioners to be common issues.
38. If we accept the contentions as made on behalf of
the petitioners, we fear that we are creating a new pattern
and jurisprudence in relation to such matters being
entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction, thereby
rendering the provision for a statutory appeal wholly
otiose. This would lead to severe and drastic
consequences, in as much as assessments as may be levied
by the several Municipal Corporations, governed by the
provisions of the MMC Act, would become vulnerable to
challenge by approaching the High Court in its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction. This would be applicable
across the board in respect of all the Municipal
Corporations in the State of Maharashtra. We would
hence certainly not accept such wanton contention as
sought to be urged by the petitioners, that an enbloc writ
petition assailing the property tax bills be entertained. The
legislative wisdom behind Section 406 providing for a
statutory appeal cannot be defeated, merely because
petitioner no.1 is a Federation, with several member
societies, and merely because it is claimed that they have a
common cause. It would be wrong reading of law that
merely by forming a federation, a different color could be
given to an individual cause so as to contend that the writ
petition be entertained. In our opinion, for such reasons
the petitioners are under an erroneous impression that
merely because they have many members who
purportedly share a common cause, namely, to assail the
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
bills issued to them, the petitioners would have a foothold
to maintain the present petition and that looking at the
numbers albeit miniscule number of assessees, the High
Court would be under some obligation, to entertain such a
petition. Certainly, the law would not accept such a drastic
proposition.
49. The procedure for levy and collection of municipal
taxes falls under Chapter XI of the MMC Act titled as
"Municipal Taxation". Section 127 which falls under the
said Chapter, is the charging Section, providing that the
Municipal Corporation, inter alia, is authorised to impose
taxes and one of them being property taxes. Section 128
provides for the prescribed manner in which the
Municipal taxes may be recovered by the Rules. Section
128-A provides that the property taxes leviable on
buildings and lands in the City under the Act shall
include water tax, water benefit tax, sewerage tax,
sewerage benefit tax, general tax, education cess, street tax
and betterment charges. Section 129 provides for
property taxes leviable on rateable value, or on capital
value, as the case may be and at what rate. The entire
chapter dealing with Municipal Taxation comprises of
provisions of Section 127 to Section 152-1A. This apart,
Chapter VIII falling under Schedule 'D' of the MMC Act
provides for Taxation Rules, which contains Rules 1 to 63
dealing with the assessment of taxes. It can certainly be
said that the provisions of "Chapter IX (Municipal
taxation)" from Section 127 to 152-1A of the MMC Act
read with the "Taxation Rules" (Rule 1 to 63)
incorporated thereunder is a Code by itself. Thus, on
one hand the MMC Act provides substantive provisions
in regard to the municipal taxation. Read with these
provisions is the provision of Section 406 which forms an
inextricable concomitant, of the taxing provisions, when
it provides for a statutory remedy of an appeal. Thus, such
provision which is integral to the mechanism of the taxing
provisions, necessarily is required to be given its highest
weightage, when the Court considers whether a challenge
to levy or demand of tax being raised in the proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be
entertained. The petitioners' contention to disregard this
provision is not the correct approach."
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
16. In view of the aforesaid findings of the Division Bench of this Court, in
the facts of the present case, we do not intend to delve in to the merits of the rival
contentions and in particular the contentions as raised by the Petitioner with
respect to the fact that levy of LBT is inapplicable under the provisions of Section
127(2)(aaa) of MMC Act and charging Section 152(A) is inapplicable. These are
the contentions which can very well be taken by the Petitioner, before the appellate
authority, as Section 406(6) of the MMC Act would provide. On a perusal of the
decisions as relied on behalf of the Respondent Municipal Corporation, the
Petitioner necessarily needs to take recourse to the appellate remedy.
17. We accordingly dispose of this petition by following order :
ORDER
(i) The Petitioner shall take recourse to the statutory remedy of an appeal
as provided under Section 406(6) of the MMC Act in assailing the impugned
orders and notices in question;
(ii) If the statutory appeal be filed by the Petitioner within a period of three
weeks from today, the same shall be decided by the appellate authority without
raising any objection as to limitation, as the Petitioner was bona fide prosecuting
present proceedings;
(iii) The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeals expeditiously and
preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of appeal before the
appellate authority;
Manish Thatte
11.WP.5952.2023.DOC
(iv) The Petitioner shall deposit the amount of LBT as levied/demanded by
Respondent no.3 as per the mandate of sub-Section 8 of Section 406 of MMC, as a
pre-condition for the appeal to be entertained and adjudicated;
(v) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open to be
urged before the appellate authority;
(vi) We expressly keep open the challenge as raised by the Petitioner to the
vires of the provisions of Rule 48 of the LBT Rules to be raised, if the need so
arises;
(vii) The petition stands disposed of in above terms. No costs;
(viii) In view of the disposal of the writ petition, Interim Application does
not survive and stands disposed of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Manish Thatte
