Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) This is a reference by the Additional District and Sessions "WHETHERany amount of property tax is in dispute in this appeal and the same has to be deposited by the appellant in the office of the Corporation before the appeal can be heard or determined, or not ?"

Similar reference is made in the other references. They would therefore, be disposed of by one order. For the purpose of the present reference Iill refer to the facts of Civil Reference No. 2 of 1971.

(2) The first rateable value of premises No. 2, Kalkaji Industrial Area, New Delhi, was fixed at Rs. 37,800.00 with effect from 1-4-1960 by the Corporation. With effect from 1-3-1967 the rateable value was increased to Rs.88,500.00 due to some additional construction. After the payment of the house-tax for the year 1969-70 on the said basis, the Corporation issued a notice to the landlord on 13-3-1970, under Section 126 of the Act for raising the rateable value to Rs. l,29,650.00 with effect from 1-4-1969. The grounds for revision stated in the notice were : ''(A)Previous rateable value was found to be erroneously valued; (b) Repairing and plastering of walls."

(8) Under Older 41, Rule 5 in a money decree the appellate court directs the deposit of the decretal amount. But it can, appropriate cases, direct giving of security in lieu of the deposit of decretal amount. On satisfaction of either of these conditions the appellate court can stay execution of a money decree. As compared to a private creditor the Corporation is armed with more effective and summary powers of the realization of the tax amount. The tax dues can be recovered by the Corporation by distress and sale of immovable property of the defaulter by invoking summary powers given by Section 156 of the Act. In addition a sum not exceeding 20 per cent of the tax dues can be recovered from the defaulter under Section 155. The tax dues are more than adequately secured and the District Court while considering the question of stay of the recovery need not go into the question of security as is done in the normal civil appeals. The question raised in the reference is to be answered in this context. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the District Court has any discretion in the matter of the deposit of tax amount while hearing an appeal under Section 169, read with Section 170. On the facts stated in the Reference the question to be answered is still narrowed. It may be stated as follows : Where under Section 126 there is an increase in the rateable value and the assessment, what is the amount to be deposited by the assessed, whether the entire tax amount with the increase or the admitted amount or the disputed amount ?

(9) Here is Section 170 needs additional scrutiny. Unless the amount is deposited, no appeal shall be heard or determined. Normally, no appeal shall be determined unless it is heard. This would suggest that the appeal can be filed by the assessed without deposit of any amount. In other words, the appeal shall be maintainable without deposit of the tax amount. At the stage of the hearing the District Judge will ascertain whether the tax amount is to be deposited by the assessed or not. By this time if the amount is not deposited the Court will dismiss the appeal on this short ground. But if the assessed deposits only the admitted amount, will it satisfy the requirement of Section 170 or if the assessed deposits only the disputed amount will it satisfy the requirement of the said section? In other words, can the District Court insist that the entire tax amount with the increase under Section 126 should be deposited before the appeal is heard ? To apply the provisions to the facts before us, should the assessed deposit the tax on the basis of the admitted rateable value of Rs. 88,500.00 or should he deposit the tax amount on the dis- puted increase in the rateable value of Rs. 28.050.00 or should he deposit the tax amount on the total rateable value (with increase) of Rs. l,16,550.00 ?

(10) Section 170(b) provides that unless "the amount, if any, in dispute in the appeal has been deposited by the appellant in the office of the Corporation" no appeal shall be heard or determined. The literal interpretation of the words, "the amount in dispute in appeal" would mean only the difference between the original amount and the increased amount, since the dispute is restricted to the increase in the rateable value. What is disputed in appeal is the difference by way of increase in the rateable value and, therefore, the differential increase of the tax amount. In the present case it would mean that if the assessed deposits the tax amount on the basis of the difference or the disputed amount of the rateable value of Rs. 28,050.00 the District Court must hear and determine the appeal of the assessed. But this would lead to absurd results defeating the object of depositing the tax amount as a pre-condition of the determination of the appeal in cases arising out of the increase of the rateable value under Section 126(d). Unless the increase in the rateable value is very large, as compared to the original rateable value, the object of securing ready funds for Corporation administration would not befulfilled. Even under Section 124 it is doubtful whether the entire tax amount can be described as disputed amount. Suppose if the property is assessed to tax for the first time and the owners submits valuation of the property at Rs. l,00,000.00 . The Corporation does not accept the said valuation and holds that the valuation should be Rs.l,50,000.00 . The rateable value worked out on these two figures would differ. Since the landlord must pay house-tax, he would be ready to pay the house-tax fixed on the basis of the rateable value worked out on the valuation of the property at Rs. l,00,000.00 but he will dispute the amount of the tax worked out on the basis of the additional sum of Rs. 50,000.00 towards the valuation of house. The problem would, therefore, be same if Section 170(b) is to be literally applied. The assessed will deposit the tax worked out on the differential value of Rs. 50,000.00 and will submit that his appeal should be heard. The provisions of the Municipal bye-laws under Sections 124 and 126, referred to in answering the first part of the question, will not support the interpretation that the entire amount afier increase shall be deposited as a pre-condition of the hearing of the appeal. The bye-laws enable us to ascertain as to when the tax amount becomes due and nothing more. It is also subject to the determination of rateable value and assessment on appeal. We are concerned here with a case where the assessed does not accept the tax liability which is said to be 'due' by the Corporation. The assessed disputes the increase and he prefers an appeal. The amount in dispute is the increase.