Gram Panchayat property tax and MIDC service charges operate separately; promissory estoppel does not defeat the statutory levy.

A Gram Panchayat's power to levy property tax under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act was found distinct from MIDC service charges, which operate as a separate impost. The memorandum and lease deed did not create any enforceable promise of tax exemption, as the materials contemplated assistance in resolving disputes and required payment of taxes and outgoings. Promissory estoppel therefore could not defeat the statutory levy. The text also notes that no notification suspending the levy was shown, and that the procedural objection to the second appeal hearing was unsupported by any statutory rule requiring all Standing Committee members to sit together.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Government of Maharashtra's memorandum and the MIDC lease created any enforceable promise preventing the Gram Panchayat from levying property tax beyond the estimated amount, so as to attract promissory estoppel; (ii) whether the Gram Panchayat lacked authority to levy property tax because the petitioner was already paying service charges to MIDC and because no amenities were provided by the Panchayat; and (iii) whether the second appeal under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 had to be heard by all members of the Standing Committee and whether the impugned appellate order was therefore invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the Government of Maharashtra's memorandum and the MIDC lease created any enforceable promise preventing the Gram Panchayat from levying property tax beyond the estimated amount, so as to attract promissory estoppel.

Analysis: The memorandum only contemplated governmental assistance and facilitation in resolving tax disputes and did not contain any promise of tax exemption. The lease deed, on its terms, required payment of taxes, rates and outgoings in addition to MIDC service charges. The petitioner's own conduct in seeking a lump-sum settlement and entering into an agreement with the Gram Panchayat for an earlier period was inconsistent with the claim of total immunity from levy. On that footing, no enforceable promise capable of defeating the statutory levy was established.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the Gram Panchayat lacked authority to levy property tax because the petitioner was already paying service charges to MIDC and because no amenities were provided by the Panchayat.

Analysis: Section 124 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 confers power on a Panchayat to levy taxes on buildings and lands, while Section 125 permits a lump-sum arrangement with State sanction. The statutory levy by the Gram Panchayat is distinct from MIDC's service charges under Section 17 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The two imposts operate in different fields, one being a tax and the other a fee, and the petitioner had itself acknowledged the Panchayat's taxing power by entering into an earlier settlement. No notification suspending the levy under Section 124(6) was shown.

Conclusion: The Gram Panchayat was held to have authority to levy the tax, and the challenge on the ground of double taxation or absence of amenities failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the second appeal under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 had to be heard by all members of the Standing Committee and whether the impugned appellate order was therefore invalid.

Analysis: The objection was not raised in the revision before the Minister. The petitioner had itself described the forum as the Chief Executive Officer standing committee and had earlier sought relief on that basis. No statutory provision or conduct of business rule was produced to show that all members were required to sit together. The challenge was therefore both unavailable and unsupported.

Conclusion: The procedural objection was rejected and the appellate order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The tax levy and the successive orders of the statutory authorities were sustained, and no ground was made out for writ interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tax levied by a Gram Panchayat under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 cannot be defeated by an alleged executive estimate or by payment of separate MIDC service charges, and promissory estoppel will not apply where the relevant instruments and the petitioner's own conduct acknowledge the Panchayat's taxing power.

---