1981 (12) TMI 180 - HC - Indian Laws

Court requires deposit of disputed property tax amount for appeal under Section 169. District Judge granted discretion.

Punj Sons (P.) Ltd. Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi

The court confirmed that there was an amount of property tax in dispute in the appeal. It ruled that the appeal under Section 169 could not proceed unless ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether any amount of property tax is in dispute in this appeal and if it must be deposited before the appeal can be heard or determined.2. The interpretation and application of Section 170(b) of the Act concerning the deposit of property tax amount in dispute before hearing the appeal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether any amount of property tax is in dispute in this appeal and if it must be deposited before the appeal can be heard or determined:The first issue revolves around the determination of whether there is any amount of property tax in dispute that needs to be deposited by the appellant before the appeal can be heard or determined. The rateable value of the premises was initially fixed at Rs. 37,800.00, which was later increased to Rs. 88,500.00 due to additional construction. Subsequently, the Corporation issued a notice to the landlord to further increase the rateable value to Rs. 1,29,650.00, which was later revised to Rs. 1,16,550.00 after hearing objections. The landlord appealed under Section 169 of the Act without depositing any tax amount as required under Section 170(b).The court clarified that an appeal under Section 169 can be filed against both levy and assessment. The argument that no tax becomes due until an actual bill or levy is raised was found to be misconceived. The court affirmed that under Bye-law 9(5), property tax becomes due on the day the amendment is formally made in the assessment list. Thus, the amount in dispute was the difference between the original rateable value and the increased rateable value. The first part of the question was answered affirmatively, confirming that there is an amount of property tax in dispute in this appeal.2. The interpretation and application of Section 170(b) of the Act concerning the deposit of property tax amount in dispute before hearing the appeal:For the second issue, the court examined relevant sections closely. Section 170(b) stipulates that no appeal shall be heard or determined unless the amount in dispute is deposited by the appellant. The court highlighted that the right of appeal is a statutory right, and Section 170 imposes limitations on the District Court's power to hear and determine the appeal, requiring the disputed amount to be deposited.The court discussed the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code, particularly Order 41, Rule 5, which allows the appellate court to direct the deposit of the decretal amount or security in lieu of the deposit in money decrees. The court noted that the Corporation has effective and summary powers for the realization of tax dues, making the security question less relevant in this context.The court scrutinized Section 170(b) to determine whether the entire tax amount, the admitted amount, or the disputed amount should be deposited. It concluded that the literal interpretation of 'the amount in dispute in the appeal' would mean the difference between the original and increased rateable values. However, this interpretation could lead to absurd results, defeating the objective of securing funds for the Corporation's administration.To resolve this, the court referred to Section 457, which prescribes that the procedure for appeals should follow the Civil Procedure Code as far as applicable. The District Court, in its discretion, can direct the appropriate sum to be deposited before hearing the appeal, balancing the interests of the assessed and the Corporation.The court also referenced a similar view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, apply to appeals questioning the enhancement of property tax, allowing for the stay of recovery of the tax.The court emphasized the importance of municipal corporations in managing civic obligations and the need for substantial financial resources. It recognized the limited taxation resources and the significant role of property tax in the Corporation's finances. The court concluded that the District Judge has the discretion to direct the deposit of an admitted amount, disputed amount, or a part of the total tax amount, with or without conditions, before the appeal can be heard or determined.Conclusion:The court answered the first part of the question affirmatively, confirming that there is an amount of property tax in dispute in this appeal. For the second part, it concluded that the appeal under Section 169 cannot be heard or determined unless the amount, as directed by the District Judge, is deposited by the appellant. The District Judge has the discretion to direct the deposit of an admitted amount, disputed amount, or a part of the total tax amount, with or without conditions.