Regular Second Appeal No. 1355 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1355 of 2005 Date of Order: 07.10.2009 Surjit Singh ....Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harpreet Singh Chawla, Advocate for the appellant Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 15.09.2004 and 17.12.2004, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana and the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing his suit and partly accepting his appeal. The appellant filed a suit for declaration praying that as M/s Amar Engineering company, a partnership firm stands dissolved, neither the appellant nor its successor, is obliged to pay any house tax. In response, the Municipal Corporation asserted that as per their record, M/s Amar Engineering Company continues to be the owner of the property and therefore, M/s Amar Engineering Company is liable to pay the house tax assessed. It was further pleaded that an assessment of house tax is appealable under Sections 147 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Furthermore, Section 149 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain matter relating to tax Regular Second Appeal No. 1355 of 2005 2 and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain a challenge to an order assessing house tax is barred. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. The first appellate court partly accepted the appeal and held that the demand for payment of house tax for the period 1977-78 is barred by limitation and, therefore, cannot be recovered but dismissed the appeal with respect to the remaining period. Counsel for the appellant submits that the demand raised by the Municipal corporation is barred by limitation. Limitation for effecting a recovery is 3 years and not 12 years. It is further submitted that as the dispute relates to an obligation to pay house tax and not to the assessment thereof, the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain such a suit is not barred, under Section 149 of the Act. It is submitted that as both the courts below have dealt with this matter on merits, it would be presumed that they exercised jurisdiction as civil courts. The objection raised by counsel for the Corporation that the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred, therefore, no longer survives. Counsel for the respondent submits that an assessment of house tax, is appealable under Section 147 of the Act. The words used in Section 147 are wide enough to include the adjudication of a dispute with respect to liability to pay tax. Section 149 of the Act would bar a civil court from entertaining a dispute arising from assessment of or liability to pay house tax. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements and decrees. Sections 147 and 149 of the Act read as follows:- Regular Second Appeal No. 1355 of 2005 3 “147. Conditions of right to appeal.- No appeal shall be entertained under Section 146, unless- (a) the appeal is, in the case of tax on lands and buildings, brought within thirty days next after the date of authentication of the assessment list under Section 101 (exclusive of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the relevant entries therein), or as the case may be, within thirty days of the date on which an amendment is finally made under Section 103, and, in the case of any other tax, within thirty days next after the date of the receipt of the notice of assessment or of alteration of assessment or, if no notice has been given, within thirty days after the date of service of the first notice of demand in respect thereof: Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiration of the period prescribed therefore by this section if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period; (b) the amount, if any, in dispute in the appeal has been deposited by the appellant in the office of the Corporation. 149. Taxation not to be questioned except under this Act.- (1) No objection shall be taken to any valuation or assessment, nor shall the liability of any person to be assessed or taxed be questioned, in any other manner or by any other authority than is provided in this Act. (2) No refund of any tax shall be claimable by any person Regular Second Appeal No. 1355 of 2005 4 otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules thereunder.” Faced with the provisions of Section 147 and 149 of the Act, counsel for the appellant prays that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to approach the appellate authority under the Act after deposit of 1/4th of the amount claimed by the Municipal Corporation and to allege that as the firm M/s Amar Engineering is no longer in existence, the appellant is not liable to pay any tax. In view of the prayer made by counsel for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appellate authority under Section 147 of the Act. The appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal in accordance with law subject to the appellant depositing 1/4th of the amount payable, under the notice of demand. The parties would be free to raise all such pleas as arise for adjudication. In case, the appeal is filed within two months from today, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal within three months from the date of its filing. October 07, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE