Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (7) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y in question was earlier owned by Ram Saroop, brother of the petitioner, who had purchased the same from the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi. The petitioner purchased this property from his brother. This sale deed is dated March 10, 1978. The petitioner, thereafter, it appears, reconstructed the whole of the property. It is now a 2 1/2 storeyed house and the plot of land underneath measures 85.9 sq. yds. A notice under section 126 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and the Deputy Assessor and Collector assessed the rateable value of the property at Rs. 21,060 with effect from April 1, 1979, and at Rs. 11,130 with effect from April 1, 1984. He took into account the fact that a certain portion of the propert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se being shown, whether on conditions or without. It was submitted that the learned Additional District Judge did not at all advert to these provisions which gave him ample jurisdiction to stay the operation of the order of the Deputy Assessor and Collector when, in the circumstances of the case, the order suffered from various infirmities and could not stand even a moment's scrutiny. I do not think Mr. Chandhiok is quite correct on this submission of his as I feel that the order of the Deputy Assessor and Collector is not bad on the face of it. Whether the contentions of the petitioner are accepted or not is different matter altogether and this would be for the Additional District Judge, who is seized of the appeal, to decide. Section 170 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er of deposit of the tax amount while hearing an appeal under section 169 read with section 170 of the Act. The learned judge, however, reframed the question as under : "Where, under section 126, there is an increase in the rateable value and the assessment, what is the amount to be deposited by the assessee, whether the entire tax amount with the increase or the admitted amount or the disputed amount ?" The learned judge was of the opinion that a literal interpretation of section 170(b) could perhaps lead to the result not intended by the scheme of taxation under the Act. He was, therefore, of the view that section 457 of the Act read with Order 41, rule 5 of the Code, could be pressed into service to resolve the conflicting interest of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Additional District Judge, though he admitted the appeal, refused stay of deposit of the tax. But, then, the order in this writ petition was made at the stage of admission and without notice to the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi and, further, the order of stay of demand was made in the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. This judgment is of no help to Mr. Chandhiok. Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, submitted that appeal was a creation of the statute and the statute which gave that right could as well impose conditions. He said that there were various statutes which made deposits of the demands as a precondition to the filing and hearing of the appeal a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o 171, it may, therefore, be concluded that the deposit of the amount is a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal and an appeal cannot be entertained or filed unless the condition is complied with. The appellant cannot insist on the appellate court receiving the memo of appeal but disabling itself from hearing the appeal by the mere refusal of the appellant to deposit the amount." Now, if, as per the decision in this case, the appeal could not be entertained without there being deposit of the amount, the question of invoking the provisions of rule 5 of order 41 of the Code could not arise. This Bench decision was not brought to the notice of the learned single judge in Punj Sons' case [1982] Rajdhani LR 247. Another Division Ben .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates