1. Challenge to the validity of property tax computation based on the capital value system under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and associated rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Property Owners’ Association & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No 8239 OF 2022(arising out of SLP (C) No. 17009 of 2019) with CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 25689 of 2019), CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 22138 of 2019), CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 24126 of 2019), CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 25686 of 2019), CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 25687 of 2019) And CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 38 OF 2021 in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 17009 OF 2019
Decided On : 07-11-2022
Important Points
The Court held that capital value for property tax must be based on present physical attributes ('in presenti') and not future development potential (like FSI or TDR), which is ultra vires the MMC Act. Additionally, the Capital Value Rules cannot be applied retrospectively without express statutory authorization.
Subject
Tax Law - Property Tax
Act Referred
BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT: S.169, S.170, S.49(b), S.162
Capital Value Rules: R.20, R.21, R.22
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.243(x), Art.14, Art.243(y)(1)(b), Art.243(i), Art.243(y)
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils Third Amendment Act: S.3
MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT: S.139, S.154, S.61, S.4, S.155, S.128, S.140(a), S.219(a), S.125, S.126, S.127
Capital Value Rules: R.20, R.21, R.22
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.243(x), Art.14, Art.243(y)(1)(b), Art.243(i), Art.243(y)
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils Third Amendment Act: S.3
MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT: S.139, S.154, S.61, S.4, S.155, S.128, S.140(a), S.219(a), S.125, S.126, S.127
Headnote
(A) Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 139, 140, and 154, and Capital Value Rules of 2010 and 2015 - Legality of property tax based on capital value - High Court held Rules 20, 21, and 22 ultra vires the MMC Act and asserted that capital value must reflect present attributes, not future potential - Appeals by Municipal Corporation dismissed affirming High Court's view that taxation on capital value must comply strictly with statutory provisions. (Paras 15, 28, 39, 40)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 243-X - Legitimacy in authorizing municipalities to levy taxes - The legislative intent established that tax imposition aligns with constitutional empowerment and shall not necessitate recommendations from the Finance Commission. (Paras 26, 28)
(C) Constitutional law - Distribution of taxes must follow provisions within the statutory framework without retrospective implications unless explicitly stated - Rules must align with the contemporary physical status of properties instead of speculative valuations. (Paras 22, 40)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 243-X - Legitimacy in authorizing municipalities to levy taxes - The legislative intent established that tax imposition aligns with constitutional empowerment and shall not necessitate recommendations from the Finance Commission. (Paras 26, 28)
(C) Constitutional law - Distribution of taxes must follow provisions within the statutory framework without retrospective implications unless explicitly stated - Rules must align with the contemporary physical status of properties instead of speculative valuations. (Paras 22, 40)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. adv. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Praral Arora, Adv. Ms. Chesta Arora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Ralhan, Adv. Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Y.P. Dandiwala, Adv. Mr. R.K. Satpalkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv V. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Saswat Pattnaik, Adv. Mr. Hasan Murtaza, AOR Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashsish Wad, Adv. Ms. Tamali Wad, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Sahil Parghi,Adv. M/S. J S Wad And Co, AOR Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv. Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, Adv. M/s. Corporate Legal Partners, AOR Mr. D.K. Deshmukh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Senha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Deepti S. Rane, Adv. Ms. Kavya Lokande, Adv. Ms. Saandhya S. Pawar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Adv Ms. Aarti Mahto, Adv Mr. Sandeep Jalan, Adv. Mr. Amit Dixit, Adv Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv. Mr. Shubhay Tandon, Adv. Mr. P. N. Gupta, AOR Mr. Rattan Lal, Adv. Ms. Bharti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Shailendra P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari,Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, AOR Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, Adv. Ms. Madhu Suri, Adv. Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. K.K. Khurana, Adv. Mr. Adbhut Pathak, AOR Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Anand, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Aisha Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Adv.
For the Parties : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. adv. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Praral Arora, Adv. Ms. Chesta Arora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Ralhan, Adv. Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Y.P. Dandiwala, Adv. Mr. R.K. Satpalkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv V. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Saswat Pattnaik, Adv. Mr. Hasan Murtaza, AOR Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashsish Wad, Adv. Ms. Tamali Wad, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Sahil Parghi,Adv. M/S. J S Wad And Co, AOR Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv. Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, Adv. M/s. Corporate Legal Partners, AOR Mr. D.K. Deshmukh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Senha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Deepti S. Rane, Adv. Ms. Kavya Lokande, Adv. Ms. Saandhya S. Pawar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Adv Ms. Aarti Mahto, Adv Mr. Sandeep Jalan, Adv. Mr. Amit Dixit, Adv Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv. Mr. Shubhay Tandon, Adv. Mr. P. N. Gupta, AOR Mr. Rattan Lal, Adv. Ms. Bharti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Shailendra P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari,Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, AOR Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, Adv. Ms. Madhu Suri, Adv. Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. K.K. Khurana, Adv. Mr. Adbhut Pathak, AOR Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Anand, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Aisha Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Validity of capital value system — legislative competence — retrospective application of rules — use of future development potential for valuation — constitutional validity under Article 243-X. (Para 14 , 21 , 23 )
3. Capital value must be based on present physical attributes; rules cannot exceed statutory scope by considering future potential or operating retrospectively without express authorization. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
4. Property tax capital value must be determined by present status (in presenti) and not future prospects; delegated legislation cannot operate retrospectively without statutory empowerment. (Para 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
5. Appeals dismissed; High Court's ruling striking down Rules 20, 21, 22 and denying retrospective application of the 2010 Rules affirmed. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 )
6. Can the capital value of land for property tax be determined based on its future development potential, such as FSI or TDR?
No. The court held that capital value must be based on present physical attributes and status (in presenti). Future prospects or the likelihood of exploitation in the future are not contemplated by the statutory factors delineated in Section 154(1A) of the MMC Act. (Para 30 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
7. Can rules for computing property tax be applied retrospectively if the parent statute does not expressly provide for such retrospective effect?
No. In the absence of statutory empowerment to compute or levy tax with retrospective effect, the rule-making power cannot create a liability pertaining to a period before the rules came into effect. (Para 39 )
8. Does the delegation of power to a Standing Committee to fix tax rates violate Article 243-X of the Constitution?
No. The State Legislature may authorize a municipality to levy taxes in accordance with specified procedures. Delegating machinery functions, such as fixing rates or approving rules, to committees is consistent with the constitutional framework of Part IXA. (Para 14 , 27 )
9. Must all measures to improve the financial position of municipalities necessarily emanate from the recommendations of the Finance Commission under Article 243Y?
No. While Finance Commission recommendations carry significant weight, the State Legislature can independently take action to improve municipal finances based on prevailing situations, as the Legislature ultimately decides on the action taken regarding such recommendations. (Para 25 , 26 )
JUDGMENT :
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI.
1. Leave granted in all Special Leave Petitions.
2. These appeals are challenging the common judgment and order dated 24.4.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2592/2013 and connected matters. Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 38/2021 has been filed against the alleged contemnor for disobedience of orders dated 29.7.2019, 21.10.2019 and 22.11.2019 passed by this Court in the appeal arising out of said SLP(C) No. 17009 of 2019. For the present purposes, said Contempt Petition is segregated with a direction to list the same before an appropriate Court after six weeks.
3. The MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT , 18881[“MMC Act”, for short] has been enacted by the State Government to consolidate and amend various Municipal Acts which were in force relating to the Municipal administration of the city of Mumbai. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“the Corporation” for short) has been established and discharging its duties under the MMC Act.
4. The MMC Act authorizes the Corporation to impose property tax on lands and buildings. Importantly, property tax is one of the main sources of revenue for the Corporation, specifically after abolition of Octroi. The MMC Act earlier provided for levy of property tax on the basis of certain percentage of rateable value of the buildings or lands. The basis of determination of rateable value as provided in the MMC Act was the annual rent for which such buildings or lands might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year.
5. The Corporation appointed Tata Institute of Social Sciences (for short “TISS”) and University of Mumbai to study the system of levy of property tax and to suggest alternative system for such levy. TISS submitted a detailed report recommending that capital valuebased system of assessment be adopted in place of annual rental system. After detailed discussions with stake holders and based on the recommendations of TISS, the MMC Act was amended by the Maharashtra Act No. XI of 2009. The amendment incorporated an option and empowered the Corporation to levy property tax on the basis of capital value as an alternative to the earlier method of levying property tax on the basis of rateable value.
6. The Statement of Objects forming part of the Bill which led to the passing of the Maharashtra Act No. XI of 2009 was as under:
”STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
Section 139 of the MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT (Bom. III of 1888) provides for imposition of taxes by the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai. The taxes to be so imposed provide inter alia property taxes on buildings or lands. The property taxes include water tax, water benefit tax, sewerage tax, sewerage benefit tax, general tax, education cess and street tax, which are leviable on the basis of certain percentage of rateable value of the buildings or lands.
2. Section 154 of the Act provides the method of fixing rateable value of any buildings or lands assessable to property tax. The basis to determine the rateable value is the annual rent for which such buildings or lands might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, less 10 per centum of the said annual rent and the said deduction is in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other account whatever.
3. The determination or fixation of the rateable value under different Municipal Acts or Municipal Corporation Acts throughout India for the purpose of levy of property taxes under these Acts has resulted in ceaseless dispute. There has been a catena of decisions rendered by various High Courts and the Supreme Court in respect of the matter of fixation of rateable value particularly because of the provisions of Rent Control Legislation in various States including the State of Maharashtra. On account of these decisions the annual rent to be taken into account for fixation of rateable value of any buildings or lands has been pegged down to the standard rent of any bui
