Mehrotra, J. - (1.) In premises Nos. 361 and 368, Harrisganj, Kanpur, petitioner Sri Ram Mahadeo Flour and Oil Mills, a partnership firm, is in occupation. The premises are subjected to house tax and water tax by the Kanpur Cantonment Board under the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924. In respect of assessment year 197l-72 the amount initially demanded as house tax and water tax was deposited by the petitioner. Subsequently on July 6, 1972 further amounts were demanded by the Cantonment Board towards house tax and water tax for the same year. The petitioner deposited the amount under protest but assailed the assessment by filing appeals. Similarly, when additional amount as demanded from the petitioner for the year 1972-73. the petitioner deposited the same under protest. These appeals, it appears, came up for disposal before the Prescribed Authority on Oct. 30, 1972. No one was present on behalf of the petitioner so that the Prescribed Authority dismissed the same in default of the petitioner without going into the merits of the appeals. The petitioner then filed an application, supported by an affidavit, for recall of the order dated 30th Oct., 1972 on the ground that the person who was entrusted with the conduct of the ease had suddenly fallen ill so that he could not appear before the Prescribed Authority, namely. the Additional District Magistrate on the date fixed. The application was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate on May 14, 1973. The petitioner then came to this Court for relief by filing this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority was not entitled to dismiss the appeal in default and that it was bound to dispose it of on merits even though the petitioner-appellant was not represented before the Prescribed Authority. When the case was taken up, it has been urged that there is no provision in the Cantonments Act enabling the Prescribed Authority to dismiss an appeal in default. Reliance has been placed upon some decisions in support of the submission.
(3.) The provisions relating to appeals against the assessment or levy or refusal to refund any tax under the Cantonments Act are contained in Sections 84 to 88 of the Act. Section 84 enables a person aggrieved by any assessment or levy or refusal to refund a tax to file an appeal before the District Magistrate or swell other officer as may be empowered by the Government. Sub-section (2) of this section permits reference of a question of law in respect whereof the officer entertains a reasonable doubt to the High Court for its decision. Section 87 lays down the conditions upon compliance whereof the appeal is to be heard or determined. Section 88 which attaches finality to the appellate order reads thus:- "88. Finality of appellate orders :--The order of an appellate authority confirming, setting aside or modifying an order in respect of any valuation or assessment or liability to assessment or taxation shall be final: Provided that it shall be lawful for the appellate authority, upon application or on its own motion, to review any order passed by it in appeal if application in this behalf is made within three months from the date of the original order.";