- (1.) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal (CMSA) is filed against Order, dated 29 -03 -2014, in Tax Appeal No.163 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short the lower Court). I have heard Mr.B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr.S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) i.e., the respondent herein.
(2.) THE appellant suffered assessment order vide Revision Petition No.99 of 2010, dated 31 -03 -2011, passed by the respondent. The appellant assailed the same by filing Tax Appeal No.163 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Along with the Tax Appeal, he filed IA.No.386 of 2011 seeking stay pending the appeal. On 19 -07 -2011, the lower Court granted interim stay subject to the appellant making payment of the pre -existing tax and depositing the enhanced tax with the respondent before hearing of the Tax Appeal. The fact, however, remains that the appellant has not deposited the enhanced tax even at the stage of hearing the Tax Appeal. The lower Court proceeded with the hearing of the Tax Appeal and rendered findings on merits, but, eventually, in view of non -deposit of the enhanced tax by the appellant, it has dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by dismissal of the Tax Appeal, the appellant filed this CMSA. In my opinion, the lower Court has committed a serious procedural illegality in proceeding with the hearing of the Tax Appeal, though the appellant has not complied with the conditional stay order, by depositing the enhanced tax before the hearing of the said Appeal. In this context, Section 282 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, which is made applicable to the respondent - GVMC, needs to be noted. This provision, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: 282.Appeals when and to whom to lie: (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge. (2) But no such appeal shall be heard by the said Judge, unless: - (a) (b) (c) (d) in the case of an appeal against tax, the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Commissioner.
(3.) THE above -reproduced statutory provision mandates the Judge hearing the appeal not to hear the same unless the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Commissioner. Ignoring this statutory mandate, the lower Court has proceeded with the hearing of the case and needlessly rendered its findings on merits instead of dismissing the appeal, without hearing the case, only on the ground of non -compliance with the mandatory statutory provision referred to above. Therefore, the findings rendered by the lower Court, on the validity or otherwise of the enhancement of tax, are set aside.;