Bombay High Court
KSHIRIJA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD THR ITS DIRECTORversusNASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR ITS COMMISSIONER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners must pursue the statutory amnesty scheme, deposit the additional amount, and seek waiver through the Commissioner, and therefore the writ petitions are disposed with directions rather than granting a penalty waiver.
Summary
Kshirija Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. filed five writ petitions before the Bombay High Court seeking a 95% waiver of penalty on outstanding property tax dues of Rs 1,70,61,500, having already paid Rs 54,53,963 including a 5% penalty. The petitioners relied on a public notice of the municipal corporation’s amnesty scheme and argued that the penalty should be substantially reduced. The Court, referring to the precedent set in Shewalkar Developers Ltd. v. Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd., examined whether the statutory remedy under Section 406 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act barred the writ relief. The petitioners agreed to deposit an additional Rs 31,00,000 and to make representations to the Commissioner within stipulated time‑frames. The Court disposed of all petitions, directing the deposit, the filing of representations, and a reasoned order by the Commissioner, while staying any coercive recovery actions for 14 days. It clarified that an adverse order may be appealed under the statutory provision, and a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for the penalty issue.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a waiver of penalty on property tax under the municipal corporation’s amnesty scheme.
- Whether the High Court can stay coercive recovery measures pending the petitioners’ statutory representations.
- Whether the existence of a statutory remedy under Section 406 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act precludes the filing of a writ petition for penalty waiver.
Legislation cited
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act — s. 406
Subjects
- property tax
- penalty waiver
- municipal corporation
- amnesty scheme
- writ petition
- Section 406
- coercive recovery
- civil appellate jurisdiction
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
Checking your session…