MARBLE AND TILES ASSOCIATION, PUNEversusTHE COMMISSIONER,PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

                                                                     4. WP 2722-2021.doc

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         WRIT PETITION NO.2722 OF 2021

Marble & Tiles Association, Pune                            …      Petitioner
        Versus
The Commissioner
Pune Municipal Corporation And Ors.                         …      Respondents

                                  …..
Ms. Lalita Panchakshari for the Petitioner.
Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan a/w Ms. Aasmi Patil i/b Talekar & Associates
for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Smt. R.M. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3-State.
                                  …..

                                      CORAM: M.S. KARNIK &
                                             SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

                                      DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.

1.        Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.


2.        On 30th July, 2021, this Court had passed the following Order :


             “1. Heard.


             2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                the Petitioner is challenging the letter dated 22/02/2013 and
                22/09/2015 issued by the Respondent-Corporation rejecting
                their claim in respect of the refund of Octroi and also seeking
                direction against the Respondent-Corporation to refund the

RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                                  1/8
                                                                     4. WP 2722-2021.doc

                excess amount of Octroi/L.B.T. recovered from the members of
                the Association and with interest within the particular time.


             3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent-
                Corporation submits that the petition as it is filed by the
                Petitioner is not maintainable. She submits that there is an
                alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petition under
                Section 406 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act
                which reads thus:


             "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 been 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 a 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;


             (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 complainant to be made to the
                Commissioner against the demand, such complaint has
                previously been made and disposed of;


RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                                  2/8
                                                                   4. WP 2722-2021.doc

             (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;"




                 In support of this contention the learned counsel for the
                Respondent-Corporation relies on the following Judgments:


             a. Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai
                and Others (1998) 8 SCC 1.


                b. Wandleside National Conductors Ltd. Vs. Municipal
                Corporation for the City of Pune (1989) SCC Online Boi.. 110.


             c. Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce Industries & Agricultur,
                Pune Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 2003 SCC OnLine
                Bom 711.


             d.Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Kalyan Dombivali
                Municipal Corporation 2017 (3) Mah LJ 874.


             e. Idea Cellular Limited Vs. Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors.
                e. 2018 SCC Online Bom 6534.


             4. On the basis of these submissions, the learned counsel for the
                Respondent-Corporation submits that, the writ petition as it is
                filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable and the same is
                required to be dismissed with costs.


             5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits

RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                                3/8
                                                                    4. WP 2722-2021.doc

                that she requires some time to take instructions from her client
                whether they are ready and willing to file an appeal under
                Section 406 of the said Act.


             6. On the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner,
                matter to appear on board on 05/08/2021.”




3.        It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

that since year 2007 till the Octroi was abolished on 01 st April, 2013,

the Respondent-Corporation is not processing the application for

refund of the Octroi in respect of the members of its Association. It is

submitted that there are several claims pending before the Municipal

Corporation claiming refund. The Municipal Corporation, however,

is not processing these applications. It is further submitted that it

may not be possible for each and every individual member to

approach this Court. Therefore, the Petition has been filed on behalf

of the members in a representative capacity. The learned Counsel

has        submitted that before the excess recovery was made, no

information whatsoever was provided. Several applications made for

refund of the excess recovery are pending.




RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                                 4/8
                                                                    4. WP 2722-2021.doc

4.        The Petitioner seeks the following prayers :-


        “(a) That the record and proceedings of the refund cases which
                were filed by the octroi/L.B.T. office of the Respondent No.1 be
                called for.


        (b1) By appropriate writ/order of mandamus this Hon’ble Court be
                pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to follow the
                proper procedure and strictly observe their own rules and
                regulations.


        (b2) That the resolution/letter dated 22 nd February, 2013 and 22nd
                September, 2015, be quashed and set aside.


        (c)     By appropriate writ/order direction this Hon’ble Court be
                pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to assess the
                cases of excess recovery of octroi/L.B.T. and consequently the
                Respondent No.1 and 2 be directed to refund the excess
                amount of octroi/L.B.T. recovered from members of the
                Association and pay the amount of refund to the Petitioners
                within period of 45 days as stated in the rules.


        (d) for the cost of this petition.


        (e) for such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may
                deem fit in the interest of justice.”




5.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the Respondent-

Municipal Corporation, who submits on instructions that it is not as if


RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                                 5/8
                                                         4. WP 2722-2021.doc

the Corporation is not processing the claims for refund.              It is

submitted that where the relevant claims for refund are made with

supporting documents, the Corporation is bound to consider such

Applications and infact the Applications have been dealt with. The

learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that in this Petition

itself the claims on pages 23A to 36 are made by the members, which

the Corporation has rejected.         It is further pointed out that the

claims at pages 63 to 70 made by the members of the Petitioner-

Association are allowed.


6.        We, therefore, find that the Corporation is considering the

Applications made for refund and infact, the Corporation is bound to

consider the Applications for refund, if a valid claim is made based

on the supporting documents.


7.        The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that these are

more than 9000 such claims for refund pending before the

Corporation. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited out

attention to the copy of the communication at page no.50 of the

paper book addressed by the Assistant Additional Commissioner of

the Municipal Corporation to the Commissioner of the Municipal


RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                      6/8
                                                                  4. WP 2722-2021.doc

Corporation.           The second last para of the said communication

records as under :-


          “The then Octroi Officer has fixed value of imported goods as per
          market rate under rule 15 of Octroi as per rule 16 of the Octroi
          Regulations, 2008, assessment of these goods has been done as per
          rates approved by Municipal Corporation. As assessment done is
          proper and correct, REFUND of Octroi amount cannot be given in
          said matter to Marble and Stone Association and Poona Timber
          Merchants and Saw Mill Owners Association. At present there are
          9,406 complaint refund matter with Local Body Tx Office and if
          refund of said matters is to be given then amount of approximately
          Rs. 2,31,56,000/- (in words Rupees Two Crores Thirty One lakhs
          Fifty Six Thousands only) will have to be paid to Importer.”




8.        It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

that said complaint pertaining to refund claims has not been decided.

However, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Corporation

that whenever a claim is made for refund, the same has been dealt

with and decided. In some cases the claim has been allowed, in other

cases the claim has been rejected.


9.        In our opinion the Respondent-Corporation is bound to decide

the application for refund, if the same has been made by the

RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                               7/8
                                                           4. WP 2722-2021.doc

individual members in accordance with provisions of law. If such

applications for refund are made and not decided, the same be

decided expeditiously and in any case, within a period of eight weeks

from the date of communication of this Order. It is open for the

aggrieved persons to challenge the order passed in the claim for

refund by adopting alternate statutory remedy under the provision of

Section 406 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.


10.        If the application for claim is already rejected, it is obviously

for the aggrieved person to seek remedy against such rejection of

claim for refund.


11.       It is not possible for us to grant any general direction as prayed

for in this Petition filed by the Association on behalf of its members.

The aggrieved person can always resort to appropriate remedies

available as per law by filing a proper claim with supporting

documents.


12.       Keeping all the contentions open, the Petition is disposed of.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                            (M.S. KARNIK, J.)


RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                        8/8
                Digitally signed
 RAJESH         by RAJESH
                VASANT
 VASANT         CHITTEWAN
 CHITTEWAN      Date: 2026.09.30
                18:22:53 +0530