Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Maharashtra High Court:Writ not Allowed - Statutory Remedy for Municipal Tax Disputes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Maharashtra High Court, comprising Bench members JITENDRA JAIN, J. And G. S. KULKARNI, J., recently underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory remedy in cases involving municipal tax disputes. The judgment, delivered on [Date of Decision], provides clarity on the course of action to be taken by citizens challenging assessment orders related to Local Body Tax (LBT) levies under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (MMC) Act, 1949.

The High Court’s observations emphasized the legislative scheme and the availability of a specific statutory appeal process under Section 406 of the MMC Act. The court highlighted the relevance of pursuing the prescribed appellate remedy to address grievances related to assessment orders.

Quoting from the judgment, the Court observed, “Challenging assessment orders through an en bloc writ petition would undermine the essence of the statutory appeal provision and deviate from the legislative intent.” The Court referred to earlier decisions, clarifying that resorting to the statutory appeal process is the appropriate route for challenging property tax bills, ensuring a comprehensive and fair examination of the matters at hand.

Another noteworthy observation from the judgment stated, “Mere challenge to the validity of a provision is insufficient grounds for entertaining a petition without a strong foundation and a cause of action.” The Court highlighted the need for a substantial basis and a legitimate cause of action to challenge the vires of a statutory provision.

In its disposition, the Court granted permission for the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy provided under Section 406 of the MMC Act. The petitioner was instructed to file the appeal within four weeks, and the Court directed that the appeals be meticulously adjudicated on their merits by the designated appellate authority.

The judgment reinforced the principle that the statutory remedy should not be bypassed in favor of seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. The decision serves as a precedent for future cases involving municipal taxation disputes, emphasizing the significance of adhering to the legislative scheme and availing the established appellate mechanism.

This ruling echoes the Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of statutory remedies, ensuring a balanced and structured approach to addressing legal disputes.

Date of Decision: [10.08.2023]

Kokuyo Camlin Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra

Latest Legal News