TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Pre-deposit Essential for Tax Appeals: Supreme Court Decision</h1> <h3>Shyam Kishore And Others Versus Municipal Corporation Of Delhi</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's majority view that the deposit of tax amount under Section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the condition of deposit of tax amount u/s 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is a condition precedent for hearing or determination of the appeal.2. Whether the District Judge has the discretion to grant stay of the disputed amount or dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount in appeal.3. The constitutional validity of Section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.Summary:Issue 1: Condition Precedent for Hearing or Determination of AppealThe Full Bench of the Delhi High Court held that 'the condition of deposit of tax amount under Section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is a condition precedent for hearing or determination of the appeal.' The court concluded that the right of appeal is a creature of statute, and it is within the legislature's power to impose conditions for exercising such rights. Issue 2: Discretion of District JudgeThe majority opinion affirmed that 'the District Judge had no discretion to grant stay of the disputed amount or dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount in appeal.' The court referred to Section 170(b) and emphasized that the provision does not allow for any waiver or stay of the deposit requirement by the District Judge.Issue 3: Constitutional Validity of Section 170(b)The majority of the learned Judges held that 'Section 170(b) of the Act is not ultra vires the Constitution.' They reasoned that the provision, which requires pre-deposit of the disputed tax amount before an appeal can be heard, does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court cited several precedents, including Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, which upheld similar provisions requiring pre-deposit for appeals.Additional Observations:The court also examined the procedural aspects under Sections 124, 125, and 126 of the Act, noting that the assessment list, once authenticated, is subject to alterations and appeals. The court interpreted Section 170(b) to mean that while an appeal cannot be 'heard or determined' without the pre-deposit, it does not bar the filing or preliminary consideration of the appeal. The District Judge may adjourn the hearing to allow the appellant time to make the deposit but cannot stay the recovery of the tax pending the appeal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the majority view of the Delhi High Court, affirming that Section 170(b) is intra vires and that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to waive the deposit condition or stay the tax collection pending appeal. However, the judge may adjourn the hearing to enable the appellant to pay the tax before the appeal is heard on merits. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
