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 01st 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 22nd 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 RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Digitally signed by RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.09.30 18:22:53 +0530