Payment of Outstanding Property Tax – Crescent Bay (FY 2017–26)

[Ketan Parab]

Dear Sir,

 

We have received the property tax invoices for the common areas from BMC for Crescent Bay (CB) for FY 2025–26, which also include outstanding demands from FY 2017 onwards.

As informed by BMC, 100% payment of the outstanding property tax from FY 2017 onwards is required to be made before the due date to avoid the levy of any penalty or interest.

In view of the above, we have done the payment of LTR’s share of the common area property tax. However, we would like to highlight the following:

 

• The property tax cost was already considered at 100% in T6, whereas only 50% payment had been made to BMC till date. The balance 50% for FY 2017–2023 amounted to ₹36,14,984.
• Similarly, the property tax cost was already considered at 100% in T3, while only 50% payment had been made to BMC. The balance 50% for FY 2017–2023 amounted to ₹22,24,312.

 

We wish to inform you that we have now paid the remaining 50% balance amount of property tax towards Tower 3 and Tower 6. This is for your record and future reference.

 

 

Thanks & regards,

Ketan Parab

Manager- Handover & Facility Management

Larsen & Toubro Limited

 

Larsen & Toubro Limited

www.larsentoubro.com

This Email may contain confidential or privileged information for the intended recipient (s). If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disseminate the information, notify the sender and delete it from your system.

Sensitivity : This Document is Classified as "LNT Internal Use".

[Secretary T5 Crescent Bay]

Please share order by BMC 

Jaineel Aga
Hon. Secretary, T-5

[Secretary T5 Crescent Bay]

We have been waiting for the formal policy / notification by BMC and any supporting documents. 

T5 has paid 100% of its common area PT as per the recommendation given by LTR when the matter was discussed and have made it very clear, we will not be subject to or party to any penal charges or interest levied while reserving our right to any refunds from BMC in case of a reversal or revised calculation by the courts / relevant authorities.

I will request T5 Treasurer to confirm this as well.

Regards 

JAINEEL AGA
Hon. Secretary
T-5, Crescent Bay

On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 2:23 PM Jay Jesrani <jay.j...@cbt6.in> wrote:

Ketan, 

You need to update the Property Tax sheet of all towers and send it across pls. Kindly do it on priority. 

Interim Apex,

Important all towers pay at the same rate for continuity. For the current year it was decided to pay 50% of property tax demand. I understand from Ashish, T5 has paid 100% of their share of common area PT for this year (25-26). Can T5 confirm pls? 

Regards

Jay

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: Secretary T5 Crescent Bay <secretary...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:14:00 PM
To: Ketan Parab <Ketan...@larsentoubro.com>
Cc: cbapex <cba...@googlegroups.com>; Jay Jesrani <jay.j...@cbt6.in>; Rajiv Sabnis <rajiv...@gmail.com>; PRAKASH GOUD <prak...@gmail.com>; ASHOK SAKPAL <piroj...@gmail.com>; Shahid Khan T2 4306 <shah...@gmail.com>; Dharmesh Personal <ddsh...@gmail.com>; Prabhakar Awalegaonkar <prabhak...@gmail.com>; Ashish Chandak <chandak...@gmail.com>; Keyur Sanghvi <ke...@fastclean.in>; chairman...@gmail.com <chairman...@gmail.com>; shyam sutaria <shyams...@hotmail.com>; Ramesh Subramanyam <ram...@cbt6.in>; Bharat Shah <bhara...@gmail.com>; Neel Bhatia <nee...@gmail.com>; Office Bearers <offi...@cbt6.in>; Jay goyal <C_jay...@larsentoubro.com>; Gadkar, Sushant <sushant...@brightstone.co.in>
Subject: Re: Payment of Outstanding Property Tax – Crescent Bay (FY 2017–26)

 

[Ketan Parab]

Dear Sir,

 

We have shared property tax sheet on 13^th Dec 2025. Attached mail for your reference.

 

 

Thanks & regards,

Ketan Parab

Manager- Handover & Facility Management

Larsen & Toubro Limited

 

Sensitivity : This Document is Classified as "LNT Internal Use".

From: Jay Jesrani <jay.j...@cbt6.in>
Sent: 28 April 2026 14:55
To: Secretary T5 Crescent Bay <secretary...@gmail.com>; Nandakumar Tirumalai <na...@cbt6.in>; Rajiv Sabnis <rajiv...@gmail.com>; Dharmesh Personal <ddsh...@gmail.com>; Ashish Chandak <chandak...@gmail.com>; Ramesh Subramanyam <ram...@cbt6.in>; Keyur Sanghvi <ke...@fastclean.in>; Bharat Shah <bhara...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ketan Parab <Ketan...@larsentoubro.com>; cbapex <cba...@googlegroups.com>; PRAKASH GOUD <prak...@gmail.com>; ASHOK SAKPAL <piroj...@gmail.com>; Shahid Khan T2 4306 <shah...@gmail.com>; Prabhakar Awalegaonkar <prabhak...@gmail.com>; chairman...@gmail.com; shyam sutaria <shyams...@hotmail.com>; Neel Bhatia <nee...@gmail.com>; Office Bearers <offi...@cbt6.in>; Jay goyal <C_jay...@larsentoubro.com>; Gadkar, Sushant <sushant...@brightstone.co.in>
Subject: Re: Payment of Outstanding Property Tax – Crescent Bay (FY 2017–26)

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The past payment of PT is pending for T5 and other towers, so till you clear PT balance 50% for past years you are liable for interest in future. 

 

This difference in payment among towers will create complication in future. For want of safety from interest penalty , T6 may also consider 100% payment across all years as we have already collected payment from members. 

[Secretary T5 Crescent Bay]

Good Point Jay,

I believe when this matter was discussed, the 50% was eligible till last year because of the court order but for this year, the ask was 100%. 

On the previous years, we will have to discuss and get back and agree that all towers should follow the same principle - We are in agreement but for us to make a collective decision, we have to know the background that has changed from the previous Court's observation of the Computational method of the Capital Value. 

If we are asked to pay 100%, it means there has to be something that has changed - Court Ruling or otherwise. This is exactly the clarity on the circumstances that what we are asking for

Regards

JAINEEL AGA
Hon. Secretary
T-5, Crescent Bay

On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 2:54 PM Jay Jesrani <jay.j...@cbt6.in> wrote:

The past payment of PT is pending for T5 and other towers, so till you clear PT balance 50% for past years you are liable for interest in future. 

This difference in payment among towers will create complication in future. For want of safety from interest penalty , T6 may also consider 100% payment across all years as we have already collected payment from members. 

Regards

Jay

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: Secretary T5 Crescent Bay <secretary...@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:47:10 PM
To: Jay Jesrani <jay.j...@cbt6.in>

Cc: Ketan Parab <Ketan...@larsentoubro.com>; cbapex <cba...@googlegroups.com>; Rajiv Sabnis <rajiv...@gmail.com>; PRAKASH GOUD <prak...@gmail.com>; ASHOK SAKPAL <piroj...@gmail.com>; Shahid Khan T2 4306 <shah...@gmail.com>; Dharmesh Personal <ddsh...@gmail.com>; Prabhakar Awalegaonkar <prabhak...@gmail.com>; Ashish Chandak <chandak...@gmail.com>; Keyur Sanghvi <ke...@fastclean.in>; chairman...@gmail.com <chairman...@gmail.com>; shyam sutaria <shyams...@hotmail.com>; Ramesh Subramanyam <ram...@cbt6.in>; Bharat Shah <bhara...@gmail.com>; Neel Bhatia <nee...@gmail.com>; Office Bearers <offi...@cbt6.in>; Jay goyal <C_jay...@larsentoubro.com>; Gadkar, Sushant <sushant...@brightstone.co.in>

[Secretary T5 Crescent Bay]

Hi Ketan

Let me rephrase my question in case this was not clear earlier.

The claim of making 100% of PT payment (for previous years) is based on what change in circumstance? PT bills were raised even earlier by BMC of 100% value but on the court's ruling, we all payed 50% of the value because the computational of capital value was challenged in court. This was also the recommendation by LTR.

So if you are recommending 100% of the same, what has changed? This is the simple question. If we go back to our members was additional payment, we need to have proper answers and justification right? Please help us with the same.

Regards

JAINEEL AGA
Hon. Secretary
T-5, Crescent Bay

[Secretary T5 Crescent Bay]

And hence the question to LTR to justify!!

JAINEEL AGA
Hon. Secretary
T-5, Crescent Bay

On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 3:03 PM Jay Jesrani <jay.j...@cbt6.in> wrote:

For the previous years, LTR has paid 100% on our behalf till 2023-24. This makes all towers except T3 and T6 liable for interest for past payments. 

For T6 we need to pay 50% balance only from 2024-2026 (two years) 

There is no new notification from Property tax department. Ltr has announced you need to pay 100% ! Currently no interest is charged. 

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: Secretary T5 Crescent Bay <secretary...@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:59:13 PM
To: Jay Jesrani <jay.j...@cbt6.in>
Cc: Nandakumar Tirumalai <na...@cbt6.in>; Rajiv Sabnis <rajiv...@gmail.com>; Dharmesh Personal <ddsh...@gmail.com>; Ashish Chandak <chandak...@gmail.com>; Ramesh Subramanyam <ram...@cbt6.in>; Keyur Sanghvi <ke...@fastclean.in>; Bharat Shah <bhara...@gmail.com>; Ketan Parab <Ketan...@larsentoubro.com>; cbapex <cba...@googlegroups.com>; PRAKASH GOUD <prak...@gmail.com>; ASHOK SAKPAL <piroj...@gmail.com>; Shahid Khan T2 4306 <shah...@gmail.com>; Prabhakar Awalegaonkar <prabhak...@gmail.com>; chairman...@gmail.com <chairman...@gmail.com>; shyam sutaria <shyams...@hotmail.com>; Neel Bhatia <nee...@gmail.com>; Office Bearers <offi...@cbt6.in>; Jay goyal <C_jay...@larsentoubro.com>; Gadkar, Sushant <sushant...@brightstone.co.in>

[Secretary T5 Crescent Bay]

Hi Ketan / LTR

Can you please provide your inputs. 

The past property tax dues are raised on LTR across periods of construction. While the concept of deemed conveyance has been made by you, it is your duty to provide the justification / explanation of why the remaining 50% is being asked contrary to the earlier recommendation as we need to prpvide this justification to our members as well. 

Please treat this as urgent and on priority. 

Regards

Jaineel Aga
Hon. Secretary, T-5

On Tue, 28 Apr 2026, 3:09 pm Jay Jesrani, <jay.j...@cbt6.in> wrote:

Past meetings on this yielded no reply. They don't have any justification. Only explanation there is no interest on all towers , pls pay and close the issue. They are not responsible for the future. 

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: Secretary T5 Crescent Bay <secretary...@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 3:07:28 PM

[Secretary T5 Crescent Bay]

Hi Ketan

I am writing to you on an urgent matter of financial consequence to every flat owner in Crescent Bay - and one that requires legal clarity before a narrow window potentially closes.

As part of an ongoing audit of property tax charges levied on Tower 5 and on the Crescent Bay common areas, we have been examining a significant body of correspondence between a T5 resident and the BMC, as well as the full chain of court judgments relating to Mumbai's Capital Value (CV) based property tax system. The legal and legislative developments we have uncovered are material enough that I felt every owner and every Apex member should be informed — and that those of you with legal expertise should be invited to share your views.

───────────────────────────
THE BACKGROUND — IN BRIEF
───────────────────────────

Since 2010, BMC has levied property tax on Mumbai properties using a Capital Value system, under rules that incorporated a property's future development potential (FSI) into the calculation of its taxable value. This inflated tax bills considerably.

The Property Owners Association and others challenged this in the Bombay High Court (WP 2592/2013). After extensive litigation:

• The Bombay High Court (April 2019) struck down Rules 20, 21, and 22 of the Capital Value Rules 2010 and 2015 as ultra vires, quashed all assessments made under them, and held that the rules could only apply prospectively from March 2012 — not from April 2010 as BMC had applied them.

• The Supreme Court (November 7, 2022 — CJI UU Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi) upheld this in full. Rules 20, 21, and 22 were confirmed invalid. The court directed BMC to recalculate all Capital Values using only present physical attributes of properties, issue fresh assessment notices, and refund excess property tax collected since 2010.

• BMC's Review Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on March 14, 2023. The judgment became final and binding. BMC's refund obligation was, from that date, legally unambiguous.

───────────────────────────────────────
WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE — AND WHY IT MATTERS NOW
───────────────────────────────────────

Despite the binding judgment, BMC has not recalculated Capital Values, has not issued fresh assessment notices, and has not processed any refunds. Bills for FY 2025–26 were issued with increases of 13–40% depending on locality, still on the same invalidated basis — with BMC itself admitting on each Special Notice that the current CV is fixed on a "protective basis" only, pending revised rules.

Then, on March 25, 2026, the Maharashtra government tabled L.A. Bill No. XXXI of 2026 — the "Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Amendment, Re-enactment of Capital Value Rules with retrospective effect and Validation) Act, 2026."

This bill, if passed:

1. Retroactively re-enacts the Capital Value Rules from April 1, 2010, declaring all past assessments and collections to have been valid all along.

2. Explicitly bars all refund claims — providing that no court may entertain a refund suit, no existing court order directing a refund may be enforced, and any excess collected shall not be refunded but only adjusted against future dues.

3. Contains language that specifically overrides "any judgement, decree or order of any court" — a direct legislative attempt to nullify the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling for practical purposes.

I want to be clear: the bill was introduced approximately two months ago. I do not have confirmed information that it has been passed into law. But the direction of intent is unambiguous.

───────────────────────────────────────
WHY THIS IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO T5 OWNERS
───────────────────────────────────────

Three distinct groups of T5 stakeholders are potentially affected:

• Individual flat owners (Stream 1): Every owner who has paid property tax since 2010 under the CV system has a potential refund entitlement for the excess arising from the invalidated Rules 20/21/22. If the Amendment Bill passes without challenge, those claims are extinguished.

• T5 Society (Stream 2): T5 pays property tax directly to BMC for the tower's own common areas. Those bills are assessed on the same CV basis and may similarly be overstated.

• Common Area / Apex (Stream 3): L&T Realty, as assessee on the Crescent Bay common area account, pays property tax on podiums, parking, amenities, and driveways — and passes T5's proportionate share to us. The cumulative BMC bill on that account since 2017 exceeds ₹8.5 crore. T5's allocated share is approximately 24%. The same legal analysis applies: if the CV calculation incorporated future FSI/development potential via the struck-down rules, those bills too are potentially excessive. We have not confirmed whether L&T has preserved any refund claim on this account.

───────────────────────────────────────────────
INVITATION FOR LEGAL VIEWS — WHAT WE NEED CLARITY ON
───────────────────────────────────────────────

We are not in a position to draw our own legal conclusions on the matters below. We are therefore reaching out to legal professionals among our owners and Apex members — whether practising advocates, retired judges, or legal academics — to offer their considered views, even informally, on the following questions:

1. Does the Maharashtra Amendment Bill (L.A. Bill No. XXXI of 2026) constitute a constitutionally valid exercise of legislative power — or does it impermissibly override a binding Supreme Court judgment without genuinely curing the underlying legal deficiency?

2. What is the current status of any individual flat owner's refund entitlement, and what steps — if any — should be taken now to preserve that claim before the bill potentially passes?

3. What measures has L&T Realty taken legally to enforce the refund claim has been filed or preserved in respect of the Crescent Bay common area property tax account?

4. Is there merit in the Apex body joining or supporting any constitutional challenge to the Amendment Bill — either directly or through the Property Owners Association or a similar body?

5. Are there procedural steps an individual flat owner should take in the immediate term — such as a formal written complaint to BMC F/South Ward, or a formal refund application — that would help preserve their rights regardless of what the legislature does?

I am happy to share the full correspondence record, the relevant BMC documents, and the audit analysis we have compiled with anyone who wishes to engage on these questions.

───────────────────────────────────────
A BRIEF NOTE ON EPISTEMIC HONESTY
───────────────────────────────────────

Everything summarised in this message is based on documented sources: the actual text of the Supreme Court judgment (November 2022), the actual text of the Maharashtra Amendment Bill (March 2026), official BMC correspondence and bills in our possession, and published legal analysis from firms including Khaitan & Co. We have been careful not to overstate. There are open questions — including the bill's current passage status and the precise terms of any interim SC directions — that require a practising professional to confirm.

What I can say with confidence is that a refund entitlement exists under current law, that it has not been honoured, and that active legislation is now in motion to eliminate it permanently. The window to act may be short.

I would be grateful if  L&T's legal team could respond to directly to this thread and at the earliest for the  Apex body's collective consideration.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

JAINEEL AGA
Hon. Secretary
T-5, Crescent Bay