HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No.71 of 2005 Dated 30TH August, 2011 Between: Smt.Uppala Alivelu Manga Tayaru .. APPELLANT A N D The Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Assilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam .. RESPONDENT This Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This C.M.S.A. is filed against the judgment dated 10-09-2004 in T.A.No.368 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The appellant herein has challenged the enhancement of the tax passed by the respondent. According to the appellant, the tax was exorbitantly enhanced and a revision petition was filed before the Commissioner. But the Commissioner has not considered the objections and therefore, the order is bad. The appeal was therefore preferred before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The Principal Senior Civil Judge considering Section 282 (2) (d) of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act (for short, “the Act”) and also judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 2279 and also the judgment of this Court in 2002 (1) ALD 61 found that as the appellant has not deposited the disputed amount even before the hearing of the appeal the appeal is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the provisions of Section 282 (2) (d) of the Act only prohibits the hearing of the appeal without payment of disputed tax. But however, after the dismissal of the appeal and while the present Second Appeal is filed in December, 2004 the tax was paid and therefore, in view of the above circumstances, an opportunity may be given to the appellant to canvas the illegality of the order of the Commissioner. It was also pleaded by him since there was a stay with regard to the collection of the tax the amount was not paid. 4. I feel that none of the contentions raised by the appellant can be entertained. The stay granted by the lower Court while admitting the appeal only relates to the future collection of the taxes, pending disposal of the appeal. So far as the non-deposit of the amount before the hearing of the appeal is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court should have given an opportunity and direct the appellant to deposit the amount. This contention also is not tenable since under Section 282 (2) (d) of the Act it is the duty of the appellant to deposit the tax before final hearing of the appeal. Therefore, when once the appeal which has been presented and proceeded by the appellant is not in accordance with law and when the lower Court itself has not inclined to give any time for the deposit and since no request has been made before the lower Court by the appellant for permission to deposit the disputed tax before hearing of the appeal, I do not think it is a fit case where the contentions of the appellant are to be accepted. 5. Accordingly, there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO August 30, 2011 PN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No.71 of 2005 August 30, 2011 PN