The deposit of tax is a condition precedent to the entertainment of an appeal under section 170 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, but the proof of payment may be offered by the time the Court entertains the appeal.

JUDGMENT-The Municipal Council of Wardha has filed this revision application against the order of the Sessions Judge, Wardha, allowing Criminal Revision Application of the Zilla Parishad, Wardha, against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Second Court, Wardha.

2. The respondent, Zilla Parishad of Wardha, purchased two Ambassador cars on 2-8-1965 at Nagpur and took them to Wardha. In the same manner, a third Ambassador car was purchased on 26.11.1965 and the fourth one on 23.2.1966. All these purchases were effected at Nagpur and the oars were taken to Wardha by road. The Municipal Committee, Wardha, claimed octroi tax on these four vehicles according to the rates prescribed in its schedule. It served a notice under section 150 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 on 11.7-1966. Under that notice, the octroi dues amounting to Rs. 1,372.72P. were claimed. The notice also said as required by section 150 that an appeal may be preferred by the Zilla Parishad under section 169 within the time prescribed by section 170.

3. The Zilla Parish ad is of the view that no octroi dues could be claimed from it. It has various reasons to allege for claiming that no tax could be levied on the car. The merits of those contentions are not relevant at the moment. Being aggrieved with the bill presented, the Zilla Parishad filed an appeal before the Judicial Magistrate on 22-7-1966. This appeal is within time prescribed by section 170 (a). However, the Zilla Parishad did not make payment of the tax before presentation of the appeal, or within 15 days from the date of service of notice. Later on, it made payment on 16.12.1966. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal was raised by-the Municipal Committee. The learned Magistrate heard the parties in the matter of the maintainability of the appeal. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that not only it was obligatory to file the appeal within 15 days from the date of presentation of the bill complained of, but within that time of 15 days, the amount of the bill ought to have been deposited by the Zilla Parishad in the Municipal Office. This was the requirement of clause (c) of section 170. Since this was not done, the appeal was incompetent. He rejected the appeal.

4. The Zilla Parishad filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge took the view that the expression used in section 170 that "no appeal shall be entertained unless the requirements of clauses (a) to (c) are satisfied" only means that the appeal will not be entertained on merits or will not be heard. It does not mean that even the presentation of the appeal was bad as no tax was paid. Here the Zilla Parishad did not pay the tax within 15 days of the presentation of the bill but merely filed an appeal. The tax was, in fact, subsequently paid on 16-12-1966. The hearing or the entertainment of that appeal by the learned Magistrate took place after 16.12.1966. On that date, the appeal was maintainable as the tax was already deposited. Having taken that view, he allowed the revision application, set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal and directed the Magistrate to hear the merits of the application and then dispose it of according to law. Against this order, the Municipal Committee has filed the present revision application.

5. The appeal of the respondent to the Magistrate is under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. The facts are not in dispute. If at all the Ambassador oars taken to Wardha by the Zilla Parishad are liable to pay tax, then the liability arose on 2.8.1965, 26.11.1965 and 23-2-1966 Till that time, only some of the sections of the new Maharashtra Municipalities Act were applicable as from 10.9.1965. The rest of the entire Act was made applicable throughout the territory of Maharashtra State on 15-6-1966. Before 15.6.1966, the liability has already accrued. However, these dues were not recovered by the previous Council. They b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document