NIRMAL KUMAR CHHAJER Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is taken up for hearing by treating it as included in the day's cause list.

(2.) The interim order under appeal was passed in a pending writ petition moved by the Appellants. The Respondents in the writ petition, who are also Respondents herein, were thereby restrained from interfering with the Appellants' running of the V.C.R. in their respective premises subject, however, to the condition that the Appellants pay the requisite taxes and other charges payable therefor under the law. The condition accordingly imposed is manifestly just, legal and proper. Those who want to carry, on the business of exhibiting films on V.C.R. must be ready and willing to pay the requisite taxes and other charges levied under law. Even where the law is under challenge, as in the present case, the litigant cannot claim as of right by way of interim relief that he may not be required to pay the impugned taxes and charges till the challenge is adjudicated. Until the law is declared ultra vires the constitution or levy of taxes or charges is declared ultra vires the law, the liability to pay taxes and charges subsists and it must be discharged. In rare and exceptional cases, the Court may grant interim injunction or stay subject to. appropriate conditions but, ordinarily, the interim protection which should be granted is to direct that in case the challenge succeeds the amount collected by way of taxes and charges will be refunded within a particular time limit, with or without interest, without driving the litigant to a suit or any other separate proceeding to make the recovery, or that such amount shall be adjusted against future tax liability, if any. These are the principles which govern the grant of interim relief in tax matters.

(3.) It is pertinent to refer to the decision in Siliguri Municipality and Ors. v/s. Amalendu Das and Ors. : A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 653 in this connection. By way of interlocutory order the Appellant Municipality was restrained in that case from recovering graduated consolidated rate on annual value of holdings in terms of amended Law. On appeal, the Supreme Court held: