P.C
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned AGP for Respondent No. 4.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners does not dispute that against the demand for property taxes, a remedy under section 406 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 is available. However, he submitted that the remedy is not efficacious. He submits that the towers on which the taxes have been levied are neither land nor the buildings which can be subjected to payment of the property taxes. He submits that there is a breach of principles of natural justice.
3. As far as the first submission is concerned, the appellant can always adduce the evidence before the appellate authority as regards the nature of towers in support of the contention that no property taxes could be levied on the towers erected by the petitioners. It is ultimately a factual controversy which can be decided by the appellate authority which in this case is the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division.
4. As far as the second submission is concerned, again the same can be gone into by the appellate authority. Hence, we do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the remedy under section 406 of the Act is not an efficacious remedy. The issues raised by the petitioners can be gone into by the appellate authority. Hence subject to what is observed above, the petition is dismissed. All contentions on merits are kept open. The remedy is also kept open.