JUDGMENT :

G.S.Kulkarni, J.

1. These are three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby a challenge has been raised by the petitioner to the assessment orders dated 14 September, 2022 pertaining to the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, assessing the petitioner for payment of the Local Body Tax (for short, “the LBT”) under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short, “the MMC Act”) by the Kalyan-Dombivali City Municipal Corporation (for short the “Municipal Corporation”). There is also a prayer assailing the notice demanding such tax dated 14 June, 2023. As the prayers made in these three petitions are similar (except for the different periods), for convenience, the prayers as made in the first petition are required to be noted which read thus:-

“(a) Quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14/06/2023 as per “Exhibit-A” and declaring that ‘Chole’ village is not included in the local urban area of the Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation.

(b) Quashing and setting aside the impugned Assessment order dated 14/09/2022 as per “Exhibit-E” and directing the Respondent No.3 to refund the amount paid by the Petitioner or recovered from the petitioner on account of LBT, interest and penalty;

(c) Declaring that sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 48 of the LBT Rules respectively for levy of penalty and interest are ultra virus to the Municipal Act.

(d) Cancelling the LBT registration Certificate as per “Exhibit-F”;

(e) That pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the recovery of Rs. 2,47,10,854 arising out of Assessment order dated 14/09/2022 as per “Exhibit-E” be stayed;

(f) Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause No. (d) above be granted.”

2. Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayers as made in the petitions, has three principal submissions. The First submission is to the effect that the municipal corporation would not have any jurisdiction to assess the petitioner for levy of the LBT, in as much as the petitioner whose factory is situated at MIDC-Chole Village is outside the jurisdiction of the municipal corporation. In support of such contention, Mr. Desai has referred to a notification dated 14 May, 2015 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, in its Urban Development Department. Mr. Desai’s contention referring to the said notification, is that only those villages whose names are set out in Schedule-I of the said notification, would be required to be held to form part of the municipal area, whereunder Village Chole has not been included, and for such reason, the municipal corporation would not have any jurisdiction to levy LBT to the petitioner.

3. The second submission as urged by Mr. Desai is to the effect that the provisions under the MMC Act pertaining to the LBT stood deleted by Maharashtra Act No. XLII of 2017. Hence, by deletion of the charging provisions namely of Section 127 of the MMC Act, and the corresponding provision in relation to the levy and collection of the LBT, there is no warrant for the municipal corporation to either make any assessment, much less demand any LBT against the petitioner.

4. The third submission as urged by Mr. Desai is that it was illegal for the respondent/corporation to demand interest and penalty, as it is his submission that the LBT provisions would not permit levy of penalty and interest and if at all the rules provide for it, they are ultra virus the Municipal Corporation Act.

5. Ms. Shruti Vyas, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for State/Respondent No.1 and Mr. A. S. Rao, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have opposed these petitions on the ground that none of the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner are tenable. It is also contended that the petitioner has alternate remedy of challenging the assessment orders by filing statutory appeals as provided fo