The main legal point established is that while appeals filed without depositing the disputed tax are maintainable, compliance with the deposit requirement is necessary for the hearing to proceed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitions impugn the order dated 16 July, 2015 of the Municipal Taxation Tribunal (Tribunal) in HTAs No.197/MTT/2015 to 200/MTT/2015 (HTAs No.197/2015 to 200/2015) preferred by the petitioner, dismissing the applications of the petitioner praying that HTAs No.1/MTT/2013 to 3/MTT/2013 (HTAs No.1/2013 to 3/2013) be heard before hearing HTAs No.197/2015 to 200/2015 and directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of principal tax in dispute in HTAs No.197/2015 to 200/2015.

2. The petitions also impugn the letters dated 27 July, 2015 and 7th August, 2015 of the respondent South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner and seek a mandamus for refund of the amount already recovered from the said accounts.

3. The petitions were listed first on urgent mentioning on 11th August, 2015, when the counsel for the respondent SDMC appeared on caveat and with the consent of the counsels were finally heard and judgment reserved. It was informed that the attachment order under challenge was with respect to two bank accounts of the petitioner, with Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) and with the Bank of India (BoI) and that from the account with the BoI, a sum of Rs.3.47 crores had already been released in favour of the respondent SDMC. It was directed that till the pronouncement of judgment, no further amount be released from the bank accounts attached. Thereafter, vide orders dated 13 August, 2015 and 21st August, 2015 it was further clarified that subject to the petitioner maintaining a sum of Rs.3 crores in the account with IDBI, Kalkaji, New Delhi, the petitioner would be entitled to operate the subject bank accounts.

4. Though the controversy in the petitions is in a narrow compass but pronouncement of the judgment has been delayed.

5. Assessment order dated 28 December, 2012 was passed assessing the annual value of the property known as Jamia Hamdard situated at Tuglaqabad, Delhi, of the petitioner, a Deemed University at Rs.10,12,55,600/-per annum with effect from 1st April, 2004, at Rs.15,27,71,450/-per annum with effect from 1st April, 2005 and at Rs.15,79,99,450/-per annum with effect from 1st April, 2009. The petitioner filed HTAs No.1/2013 to 3/2013 challenging the said assessment orders for the years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 and claims to have complied with Section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (MCD Act) requiring the amount in dispute in the appeal to be deposited. The Tribunal however vide order dated 14 November, 2014 held the appeals to be not maintainable for the reason of no appeals having been preferred for the years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2010-2011. Liberty was however given to the petitioner to file separate appeals with respect to the said years also. The petitioner preferred W.Ps.(C) No.150/2015, 153/2015 & 185/2015 against the said order of the Tribunal and which were disposed of vide order dated 20th March, 2015 by setting aside the order dated 14th November, 2014 of the Tribunal and holding HTAs No.1/2013 to 3/2013 to be maintainable but granting liberty to the petitioner, if desirous of challenging assessment qua other years also, to also file appeals with respect to the other years aforesaid. In accordance with the said liberty, HTAs No.197/2015 to 200/2015 were filed. However, the petitioner while filing the said appeals, did not comply with the requirement of Section 170(b) of the MCD Act.

6. On the contrary, the petitioner moved the application before the Tribunal for hearing of HTAs No.1/2013 to 3/2013 before hearing of HTAs No.197/2015 to 200/2015. The reason therefore is obvious. If HTAs No.197/2015 to 200/2015 also were to be heard along with HTAs No.1/2013 to 3/2013, the petitioner would be required to comply with Section 170(b) of the Act i.e. deposit the disputed tax for those years also. The petitioner hopes that if HTAs No.1/2013 to 3/2013 are heard first and decided in its fa