Availing an amnesty scheme bars refund of amounts deposited under interim court orders.

The petitioners owned and operated the “Eros Corporate Tower,” a commercial tower-cum-multi-level parking complex at Nehru Place.

They challenged the assessment of property tax on the stilt parking area under Section 123D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Bye-law 14 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Tax) Bye-laws, 2004, contending that stilt parking should not be treated as “covered space” for property-tax purposes.

For the assessment years 2005–06 to 2013–14, the Corporation raised a demand of approximately ₹18.61 crore, and for 2014–15 to 2016–17, a demand of approximately ₹10.76 crore.

Pursuant to interim orders, the petitioners deposited ₹5 crore in W.P.(C) 7305/2013 and ₹3 crore in W.P.(C) 2937/2020, against protection from coercive recovery.

In 2025, the petitioners opted for the Corporation’s SUNIYO “One Plus Five” property-tax scheme, paid ₹11,22,20,837 for 2020–21 to 2025–26, and undertook to withdraw the pending writ petitions.

They thereafter sought withdrawal of the petitions along with refund of the ₹8 crore deposited under the interim orders.

The Corporation resisted refund, contending that the undertaking to withdraw was unconditional and that the SUNIYO scheme did not permit refund of amounts already deposited.

1. Whether the petitioners could withdraw the writ petitions after availing the SUNIYO scheme and undertaking to withdraw them.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of ₹5 crore and ₹3 crore deposited pursuant to the interim orders, after having availed the SUNIYO scheme and paid the tax assessed for 2020–21 to 2025–26.

3. Whether the interim deposits were refundable merely because they had been made without prejudice to the petitioners’ rights and contentions.

The Court considered the statutory challenge under Section 123D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Bye-law 14 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Tax) Bye-laws, 2004, concerning inclusion of stilt parking within “covered space” for property-tax assessment.

It applied the principle that a party seeking withdrawal of a writ petition after accepting benefits under a policy or amnesty scheme cannot claim relief inconsistent with the scheme’s terms or obtain modification of the policy through judicial directions.

A deposit made pursuant to an interim order and expressly stated to be without prejudice may be refundable if the petition succeeds on merits, but withdrawal of the petition does not, by itself, establish an entitlement to refund.

The Court distinguished Vikram Malhotra & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 15001/2023, where adjustment—not refund—of interim deposits was directed before the benefit of the SUNIYO scheme was extended.

The Court held that the petitioners’ payment of property tax under the SUNIYO scheme for 2020–21 to 2025–26 amounted to acceptance of the tax liability and of the assessability of the property, including the issue previously challenged in the writ petitions.

Although the earlier deposits were made without prejudice, that protection would have assisted the petitioners had the petitions been adjudicated and allowed on merits; it did not create an automatic right to refund upon unilateral withdrawal.

The petitioners had enjoyed interim protection for approximately thirteen years in the first petition and six years in the second while paying only part of the disputed liability.

Having obtained waiver of earlier dues under the amnesty scheme and separately paid the assessed amount for the scheme period, they could not secure an additional benefit—refund of the interim deposits—not contemplated by SUNIYO.

Granting such relief would effectively modify the policy and operate contrary to its terms.

The Court found Vikram Malhotra distinguishable because that case involved adjustment of the deposit, whereas the present petitioners sought a refund after completing payment under the scheme.

Since the petitioners had undertaken to withdraw the writ petitions and had availed the scheme, both writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.

All pending applications were also disposed of.