Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

KSHIRIJA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.versusNASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court disposed the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.31,00,000, submit representations to the Commissioner, and stay coercive steps pending the Commissioner’s decision.

Summary

Kshirija Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. filed multiple writ petitions challenging the levy of property tax and a 5% penalty amounting to Rs.1,70,61,500, of which Rs.54,53,963 had already been paid. The petitioners sought a 95% waiver of the penalty under a municipal amnesty scheme and submitted a public notice in support. The High Court, referring to the precedent set in Shewalkar Developers Ltd. v. Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd., asked the petitioners if they would deposit an additional Rs.31,00,000 and make representations to the Municipal Commissioner. The petitioners consented to deposit the amount within 15 days and file representations within seven working days. The Court disposed the petitions by directing the deposit, the filing of representations, and a two‑week period for the Commissioner to consider a waiver, while staying any coercive recovery actions during that period. An adverse order may be appealed under Section 406 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to a 95% waiver of the penalty under the municipal amnesty scheme.
  • Whether the High Court can direct the petitioners to deposit additional amounts and make representations to the Commissioner.
  • Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 406 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • property tax
  • penalty waiver
  • municipal corporation
  • amnesty scheme
  • writ petition
  • Section 406
  • coercive recovery

Judgment

        Digitally
        signed by                                                        1to5.WP-2583-2026.odt
        GAURI AMIT
GAURI   GAEKWAD
AMIT    Date:
GAEKWAD 2026.03.06
        11:13:46        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
        +0530
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    (1) WRIT PETITION NO.2583 OF 2026
                                                  WITH
                                    (2) WRIT PETITION NO.2585 OF 2026
                                                  WITH
                                    (3) WRIT PETITION NO.2588 OF 2026
                                                  WITH
                                    (4) WRIT PETITION NO.2589 OF 2026
                                                  WITH
                                    (5) WRIT PETITION NO.2590 OF 2026
                 Kshirija Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.          ….Petitioner
                           Versus
                 Nashik Municipal Corporation            ….Respondent
                                                ----
                 Mr. Vivek Punjabi i/b. Mr. Sahil Panjwani for the Petitioner in all
                 Petitions.
                 Ms. Chaitali Deshmukh for the Respondent in all Petitions.
                                                ----
                                          CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                                 &
                                                     ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

                                               DATE     : 4th MARCH, 2026

                 P.C. :-

                 1.              After the oral submissions of the parties concluded on

                 the last date, all these matters were listed today at 5:00 p.m. for

                 dictation of order. Therefore, by consent of the parties, we have

                 commenced the dictation of the order.



                 2.              We have considered the record before us and a sheet of

                 calculations of the eight properties tendered to the Court by the

                 Gauri Gaekwad                      1 of 4
                                                          1to5.WP-2583-2026.odt




learned Advocate for the Petitioners, which is taken on record and

marked as         ‘X-1’ for        identification. It is submitted that

Rs.54,53,963/- towards property tax, inclusive of 5% of the penalty,

has been deposited by the Petitioners. The total outstanding dues

towards taxes as well as penalty, are Rs.1,70,61,500/-.



3.              The learned Advocate for the Petitioners tenders a copy

of a public notice on the basis of which the Petitioners pray for 95%

waiver of penalty. The same is taken on record and marked as ‘X-2’

for identification.



4.              The learned Advocate for the Corporation has tendered

a compilation of the entire scheme (36 pages), inclusive of the bills

pertaining to the Petitioners, which is taken on record and marked as

‘X-3’ for identification.



5.              Considering the law laid down by this Court in

Shewalkar Developers Limited, Nagpur v/s. Rupee Cooperative

Bank Limited, Pune and Ors.1, we called upon the Petitioners to

make a statement as to whether they are willing to deposit

Rs.31,00,000/-, in addition to the amount of Rs.54,53,963/- already
1 2016 (1) AIR Bom R 636 : 2016 (1) Mh.L.J. 382


Gauri Gaekwad                            2 of 4
                                                            1to5.WP-2583-2026.odt




paid.



6.                The learned Advocate for the Petitioners, after taking

instructions from the representative of the Petitioners who is present

in the Court hall, submits that an additional amount of

Rs.31,00,000/- would be deposited with the Corporation within two

weeks from today and these Petitioners would also make

representations to the Commissioner within a period of 7 working

days from today. The representations would be with reference to the

amnesty scheme ‘X-3’ (page nos.1 and 2).



7.                In view of the above, by consent of the Petitioners, all

these Petitions are disposed off, with the following directions :

                (a) The Petitioners would deposit a total amount
                of Rs.31,00,000/- with the Corporation, within
                15 days from today.

                (b) The Petitioners would submit their
                representations to the Commissioner of the
                Municipal Corporation, within 7 working days
                from today.

                (c) The Commissioner would consider the
                representations and, after assessing whether the
                constructions are authorised or not and whether
                any quantum of waiver of penalty could be
                granted to the Petitioners, would pass a reasoned
                order within two weeks thereafter.


Gauri Gaekwad                         3 of 4
                                                              1to5.WP-2583-2026.odt




                (d) Needless to state, if an adverse order is passed
                by the Commissioner, the Petitioners may prefer
                the remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 406
                of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, which
                is a statutory remedy available. Merely because
                the entire amount is to be deposited under Section
                406, would not grant an option to the Petitioners
                to file a Writ Petition in this Court.

                (e) Considering the above directions, for a period
                of 14 days after the filing of the representations,
                which is to be done within 7 working days from
                today, the Corporation will not take any coercive
                steps.

                (f) Needless to state, if the amount as stated
                above is not deposited within the timeline, the
                Corporation would be at liberty to initiate
                coercive steps for the recovery of the dues.




(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)                           (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)




Gauri Gaekwad                          4 of 4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.