Bombay High Court
SKYLARK BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANRversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND 2 ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to seek refund or adjustment of excess tax under the amended MMC Act without deciding the merits.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of real estate firms, challenged notices, demand notices and a warrant of attachment issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for property tax, contending that they had already paid tax in excess based on the capital‑value formula prescribed by interim orders of 2014‑2015 and subsequent Supreme Court judgments striking down certain MMC Act rules. They relied on the Maharashtra Act No. XXI of 2026, which amended the MMC Act and introduced provisions for refund or adjustment of excess tax paid. The High Court held that the petitions could be disposed of without adjudicating the merits, directing the petitioners to file applications with MCGM under the amended provisions for refund or adjustment. The court ordered that the MCGM consider such applications within a stipulated time and that any aggrieved party could thereafter seek appropriate remedies. No substantive determination on the parties' rights was made.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petitions challenging the tax notices are maintainable in view of the 2026 amendment to the MMC Act.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a refund or adjustment of excess property tax under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXI of 2026.
- Whether the High Court should entertain the merits of the petitioners' claims or direct them to approach the MCGM under the amended statutory scheme.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- property tax
- municipal corporation
- refund of excess tax
- amendment
- writ petition
- assessment
- capital value
- MMC Act
Judgment
55-WP-406-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 406 OF 2020
Skylark Buildcon Private Limited and Anr. .....Petitioners
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Ors. .....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 786 OF 2020
I-Ven Realty Limited and Anr. .....Petitioners
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Ors. .....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 744 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 529 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 315 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 744 OF 2020
Oberoi Realty Limited and Anr. .....Petitioners
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Ors. .....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 530 OF 2021
Oberoi Realty Limited and Anr. .....Petitioners
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Ors. .....Respondents
.....
Manisha 1/5
Digitally signed by
MANISHA MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date: 2026.08.20
10:57:47 +0530
55-WP-406-2020.doc
Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh a/w Mr. Abinash Pradhan and Ms. Garima
Agrawal i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co., for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ashwin Saleholkar a/w Ms. Jyoti Mhatre and Mr. Bibhishan Sutar
i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, for the Respondent-BMC in WP/406/2020
and WP/786/2020.
Mr. S. Paradkar, Officer, Superintendent Assessment G/S Ward in
WP/406/2020 and WP/786/2020.
Mr. Ashwin Saleholkar a/w Ms. Jyoti Mhatre and Mr. Bibhishan Sutar
i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, for the Respondent-BMC in WP/744/2020
and WP/530/2021.
Mr. Ganesh Keny, Assistant A & C P/S Ward in WP/744/2020 and
WP/530/2021.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 17th AUGUST 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
2. The Petitioners have filed the aforesaid Petitions challenging
various notices, demand notice and warrant of attachment as
mentioned in the prayer Clauses of the respective Writ Petitions
issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”
for short). The Petitioners’ case is that, pursuant to the interim order
dated 24th February, 2014 read with the order dated 1st April, 2015
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2592 of 2013 in (Property
Owners’ Association & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), the
Manisha 2/5
55-WP-406-2020.doc
Petitioners were required to pay property tax as per the formula
mentioned in the said interim orders. The Petitioners contend that
they have in fact paid 100% of the property tax computed on the
basis of capital value, and have infact paid property tax in excess.
This Court in its judgment dated 24th April, 2019 in Property Owners’
Association (supra), which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, finally decided the constitutional validity of the relevant
provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“MMC”
for short), and struck down Rules 20, 21 and 22. The Judgment
dated 24th April, 2019 provides for re-assessment of properties where
assessment was done on the basis of the Rules which were struck
down.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that, in April,
2026, by Maharashtra Act No.XXI of 2026, “Mumbai Municipal
Corporation (Amendment, Re-enactment of Capital Value Rules with
retrospective effect and Validation) Act, 2026”, the MMC Act and
Rules are amended (“the Amending Act” for short). Section 5(1)(d)
read with Section 5(2)(b) and Section 5(3) of the Amending Act
provide for refund of excess property tax paid and/ or adjustment
Manisha 3/5
55-WP-406-2020.doc
thereof against future property tax.
4. In view of the above, in our opinion, no fruitful purpose will be
served by keeping the Petitions pending before this Court. The
Petitioners can approach the MCGM under the amended provisions
of the MMC Act for the redressal of their grievance.
5. In view of above, the Petitions are therefore, disposed of by
permitting the Petitioners to file an application/ representation
before the MCGM seeking refund of the excess property tax paid and
for consequential adjustments against the property tax dues, as the
case may be, within a period of six weeks from the date of this Order.
6. Upon such application/ representation being filed, the
Municipal Commissioner of the MCGM or his delegated Authority
shall consider and decide the same by a brief reasoned order in
accordance with law after granting the Petitioners personal hearing
within a period of 16 weeks from filing such application. The said
order shall be duly served upon the Petitioners.
7. If the Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the
MCGM in application/ representation seeking adjustment/ refund of
Manisha 4/5
55-WP-406-2020.doc
the property tax, the Petitioners shall be at liberty to seek appropriate
remedies available for challenging the said order.
8. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. It is
made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
rights and contentions of the parties.
9. The question as to whether the Petitioners’ case is covered by
the amended provisions is kept open. In case any adverse orders are
passed, it is open for the Petitioners to challenge such order on
merits and even on the grounds which are subject matter of these
Petitions.
10. In view of above, Writ Petition Nos.406 of 2020, 786 of 2020,
744 of 2020 and 530 of 2021 are disposed of.
11. In view of disposal of Writ Petition No.744 of 2020, connected
Interim Application Nos.529 of 2021 and 315 of 2021 are also
disposed of.
(SANDESH D.PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Manisha 5/5
Checking your session…