Bombay High Court
NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusVICENTA MARIA SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The exemption order was set aside, reinstating the respondent's liability to pay the property tax.
Summary
The Nashik Municipal Corporation filed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order that exempted Vicenta Maria Social Service Society from paying general property tax and directed a refund of taxes already paid. The petition argued that the Society had accepted and regularly paid the tax liability and had not sought a refund. The High Court examined whether the exemption order could stand despite the Society's acceptance of tax liability. It held that the acceptance of tax liability negated the exemption, and therefore set aside both the trial court's and the appellate court's orders. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, restoring the tax liability of the Society without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the exemption from payment of general property tax granted to the respondent is valid despite the respondent's acceptance and payment of the tax liability.
Subjects
- property tax
- tax exemption
- municipal corporation
- refund
- writ petition
- civil appeal
- tax liability
Judgment
Sonali Mane 31-WP-2833-2017.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2833 OF 2017
Nashik Municipal Corporation
Represented by Commissioner, Nashik … Petitioner
Versus
Vicenta Maria Social Service Society … Respondent
None for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sangeeta Salvi a/w Ms. Pooja Chettiar for Respondent.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 22 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C. :
1) The Petition challenges Order dated 31 March 2015 passed by
the District Judge-2, Nashik, dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 199 of
2010 and confirming the Order dated 31 August 2007 passed by the
Trial Court. By Order dated 31 August 2007, the Trial Court had
declared that the Respondent is totally exempted from payment of
general tax in respect of the property in question. The amount of tax
paid by the Respondent is directed to be refunded to the Respondent.
2) Ms. Salvi, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent, on
instructions, submits that the Respondent had accepted the tax liability
Digitally
signed by
and has been regularly paid property taxes. She further submits that
MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP Date:
2026.09.24
10:57:04
+0530
___Page No.1 of 2___
22 September 2026
Sonali Mane 31-WP-2833-2017.docx
the Respondent has not taken out any proceedings for refund of the
taxes already paid.
3) In view of the fact that the Respondent has already accepted
the tax liability, the impugned orders dated 31 August 2007 passed by
the Trial Court and 31 March 2015 passed by the Appellate Court are set
aside.
4) The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no
order as costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.2 of 2___
22 September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.