Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
ST.MARY’S SCHOOL AND ORS.ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT & ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/1996
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (3) 33 1996 SCALE (1)818
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the
Cantonment Board, Meerut and remitting the matter to the
appellate authority with a direction that the appellate
authority shall give an opportunity to the petitioners to
comply with Section 87 of the Cantonment Act. The question
pertains to the assessibility of the buildings owned by the
petitioner to property tax. The appellants’ case is that by
virtue of Section 99 of the Act, they are exempt from tax.
The assessing authority held that they do not satisfy the
requirement of Section 99 and, therefore, not entitled to
exemption. Against that order the appellants’ filed an
appeal but they did not deposit the tax as required by
Section 87. Even so, the appeal was allowed by the appellate
authority on the ground that the appellants are entitled to
the benefit of Section 99. It is against the order that the
writ petition was filed by the Cantonment Board in the High
Court. The High Court held that the requirement of Section
87 is mandatory and accordingly remitted the matter with the
above directions.
Sri Sorabjee, learned counsel for the appellants,
challenges the validity of Section 87 on the ground that it
places onerous conditions in the way of the right of appeal.
The earned counsel relies upon the decision of this Court in
Shyam Kishore & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi &
Anr. [1993 (1) S.C.C.22] which deals with a similar
provision of appeal, viz., Section 107(b) of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation’s Act, 1957. The validity of the said
provision was challenged and it was repelled with the
following observations and clarifications:
"......We see nothing wrong in
interpreting the provision as permitting
the appellate authority to adjourn the
hearing of the appeal thus given time to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the assessee to pay the tax or even
specifically granting time or
instalments to enable the assessee to
deposit the disputed the tax where the
case merits it, so long as it does not
unduly interfere with the appellate
court’s calender of hearings. His
powers, however, should stop
short of staying the recovery of tax
till the disposal of the appeal. We say
this because it is one thing for the
Judge to adjourn the hearing leaving it
to the assessee to pay up the tax before
the adjourned date or permitting the
assess to pay up the tax, if he can, in
accordance with his directions before
the appeal is heard. In doing so, he
does not and cannot injunct the
department from recovering the tax if
they wish to do so. He is only giving a
chance to the assessee to pay the tax if
he wants the appeal to be heard. It is,
however, a totally different thing for
the judge to stay the recovery till the
disposal of the appeal; that would
result in modifying the language of the
proviso to read: "no appeal shall be
disposed of until the tax is paid".
Short of this, however, there is no
reason to restrict the power unduly; all
he has to do is to ensure that the
entire tax in dispute is paid up by the
time the appeal is actually heard on its
merits. We would, therefore, read clause
(b) of Section 170 only as a bar to the
hearing of the appeal and its disposal
on merit and not as a bar to be
entertainment of the appeal itself."
It is agreed by both the parties that the said
observations and clarifications shall equally govern these
matters, i.e., the appeals arising under the Cantonment Act.
Accordingly, it is directed that any appeal filed under
Section 84 of the Cantonment Act shall be dealt with,
insofar as deposit of tax is concerned [i.e., with respect
to the requirement of Section 87] in the light of and in
accordance with the above observations and clarifications.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. The appellate
authority shall examine the matter in the light of this
judgment and dispose it of according to law.
In wiew of the above orders passed in these appeals,
no orders are called for, in the writ petition. Dismissed .
No costs.