MODI TYRE FACTORY MODINAGAR Vs. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by messers Modi Tyre Factory, Modinagar, The orders sought to be impugned are dated 19 July, 1997, Annexure-8 to the petition, warrant of demand, issued under section 168 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, Annexure-10 to the writ petition and the citation, dated 25 January 1999, for recovering the amount of Rs.14 lacs from the petitioner, annexure-10 to the writ petition.

(2.) The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the writ petition. An assessment of the premises occupied by the petitioner had been made. This related to assessment for the year 1996 to 2001. This is the quinquennial assessment under section 143(1) of the Act. In so far as the warrant of demand and the citation is concerned, this has been issued as the petitioner has not satisfied the ratable taxes as were assessed. The petitioner has filed an appeal under section 160 of the Act. But , the condition precedent, the filing of the appeal had not been met by the petitioner under section 161 of the Act. The amount of the tax which has been so assessed must be deposited before the appeal can be considered. The petitioner filed the appeal, but did not follow the mandatory provision by accompanying the deposit of tax with the appeal. In the circumstances, an ad interim order was denied by the appellate authority and the appeal is not being heard.

(3.) This means that this writ petition has been filed only for the purpose of obtaining an ad interim order. There can be no short cuts to the authority of law nor can the Court make any compromise with the conditions of Section 161 of the Act. The law is very clear on this aspect, section 160 of the act provides for an appeal. To an owner or occupier of property who is aggrieved by an assessment on property taxes. Section 161 mentions in no uncertain terms that the amount of tax which has been determined or assessed must be deposited before the appeal can be considered. In reference to the present assessment of rateable taxes, the petitioner did not deposit the tax. The only indulgence the Court can grant is that should the petitioner make deposit of the amount which has been assessed, which assessment aggrieves the petitioner, the appellate authority, then, may consider the appeal and render a decision on it within two months of the deposit of the tax.