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.