CMPMO/486/2026 on 16 October 2026

2026:HHC:46207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 486/2026

Decided on: 16.10.2026

Assistant Secretary (Tax), Municipal Corporation, Shimla & anr. ….Petitioners

Versus

The Officer-in-Charge, Government of India.

…Respondent ________________________________________________________________

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order, dated 22.12.2025, as passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, whereby after accepting the appeal having been filed by the respondent, order dated 15.02.2018, as passed by the Tax Assessment Committee as well as the property tax bill of Rs.8,44,416/- raised thereunder, has been quashed and set aside.

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

The present petitioners have invoked provisions of article 227 of the Constitution of India, by medium of instant petition, primarily on the ground that the appeal, which was preferred by the present respondent before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla under the provisions of Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act is not maintainable inasmuch as the same is in conflict with the provisions of Sections 132 and 133 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (for short, “the M.C. Act”), which read as under:- “132. Appeal against assessment etc. (1) An appeal against the levy or assessment of any tax under this Court shall lie to the Divisional Commissioner and every such appeal shall subject to the provisions of this Act be received, heard and disposed of by him.

(2) In every appeal, the costs shall be in the discretion of the appellate authority.

(3) Costs awarded under this section to the Corporation shall be recoverable by the Corporation as an arrear of tax due from the appellant.

(4) If the Corporation fails to pay any costs awarded to an appellant within ten days after the date of the order for payment thereof, the appellate authority may order the Commissioner to pay the amount to the appellant.”

133. Conditions of rights to appeal.- No appeal shall be entertained under section 132, unless - (a) the appeal is, in the case of tax on lands and buildings brought within thirty days next after the date of authentication of the assessment list under section 94 (exclusive of the time requisition for obtaining a copy of the relevant entries therein), or, as the case may be, within thirty days of the date of the receipt of the notice of assessment or of alteration of assessment or, if no notice has been given, within thirty days of the date of the receipt of the notice of assessment or of alteration of assessment or, if no notice has been given, within thirty days after the date of service of the first notice of demand in respect thereof : Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiration of the period prescribed therefor by this section if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period.

(b) the amount, if any, in dispute in the appeal has been deposited by the appellant in the office of the Corporation.

It is contended by Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel for the petitioners that as per stipulation, as contained in Section 132 of the M. C. Act, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have deposited the tax assessment amount prior to filing the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla and in the absence of depositing of the said tax assessment amount, Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, could not have entertained or adjudicated the point in controversy.

On the other hand, it has been contended by Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that perusal of the order dated 22.12.2025, as passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla reveals that the order has been passed while invoking provisions of Section 132 of the M.C. Act.

After arguing for some time, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the appeal, which the present respondent had filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla with liberty to avail appropriate remedy/before the competent Court of law, which, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. His statement is taken on record.

Consequently, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the appeal, which was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, as a result of which the impugned order, as passed, loses its efficacy. Needless to say that issue of limitation is kept open to be determined by the competent Court in accordance with law.

The instant petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Romesh Verma) 16th October, 2026

Judge (pankaj)