JUDGMENT :

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

1. These are two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution whereby two Assessment Orders both dated 13 March, 2023 for the year 2015- 16 and 2016-17, passed by the Assessing Officer/Deputy Commissioner, Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation, assessing the liability of the petitioner for levy of Local Body Tax (LBT) under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the MMC Act’), has been assailed. For the year 2015-16 a demand against the petitioner is for Rs.2,09,72,136 and for the year 2016-17, the demand is of an amount of Rs.2,71,36,506/-.

2. At the outset, Ms.Sagvekar, learned Counsel for the respondent – municipal corporation raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that there is an alternate remedy of an appeal available to the petitioner under Section 406 of the Act. Section 406 of the MMC Act being appeal provision, is required to be noted 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 complaint to be made to the Commissioner against the demand, such complaint has previously been made and disposed of;

(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;

(e) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against a rateable value [or the capital value, as the case may be] [the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value, [or the capital value, as the case may be] upto the date of filing, the appeal has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner.]

(2A) Where the appeal is not filed in accordance with the provisions of clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (2), it shall be liable to be summarily dismissed.

(3) In the case of any appeal entertained by the Judge, but not heard by him, before the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Act, 1975, the Judge shall not hear and decide such appeal, unless the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value, as the case may be, upto the date of filing the appeal has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner, within thirty days from the date of publication of a general notice by the Commissioner in this behalf in the local newspapers. The Commissioner shall simultaneously serve on each such appellant a notice under sections 473 and 474 and other relevant provisions of this Act for intimating the amount to be deposited by the appellant with him.

(4) As far as possible, within fifteen days from the expiry of the period of thirty days prescribed under sub-section (3), the Commissioner shall intimate to the Judge the names and other particulars of the appellants who have deposited with him the required amount within the prescribed period and the names and other particulars of the appellants who have not