JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 30th November, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1057 of 2016 (Shishir Gupta & Anr. v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.). The appellants herein are the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and its Municipal Commissioner. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the writ petitioners to file the statutory appeal before the Tribunal by 14th December, 2016, by taking pre-deposit of 60% of the tax due, without any penalty and interest under section 189(6) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The only question which arises for consideration in the facts of the instant case, is whether the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the statutory appeal to be preferred by the writ petitioners before the Tribunal, upon deposit of 60% of the outstanding tax due contrary to the specific provision laid down under section 189(6) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. 2. On behalf of the appellants, the learned advocate has drawn our attention to sub-section (6) of section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which reads as follows: "6. No appeal under this section shall be entertained unless the property tax, including penalty, together with interest on such property tax, if any, in respect of any land or building for the period ending on the date of presentation of the appeal on the valuation determined under section 174 or section 188 has been deposited in the office of the Corporation and the appeal shall abate unless such property tax, together with interest on such property tax, if any, is continued to be deposited regularly till the appeal is finally disposed of: Provided that, if the provision of the section is not complied with, due to misrepresentation or, otherwise, any proceedings in the Municipal Assessment Tribunal will stand ipso facto void." 3. It is submitted on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation that in view of the clear statutory mandate as specified in the provision of law quoted above, the Tribunal cannot entertain the statutory appeal, unless the property tax including penalty together with interest on such property tax, if any, are deposited in the office of the Corporation in such manner as prescribed therein. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners draws our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of 'Shyam Kishore & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.' reported in: (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 22. Referring and relying upon the same, it is submitted on behalf of the said respondents that if the conditions placed on the right of appeal were unduly onerous or such as to render the right of appeal totally illusory, then the Court can intervene in an appropriate case. 5. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the view that the issue with regard to applicability of sub-section (6) of section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, is no more res Integra in view of a recent judgment rendered by this Division Bench on 8th February, 2017 in APO No. 2 of 2017 (The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Sri Pyarelal Jalan) wherein a similar fact situation of the writ Court allowing the writ petitioner to approach the Tribunal upon deposit of 30% of the differential tax was sought to be challenged in an appeal preferred by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The Division Bench, in that matter, came to a conclusion that such direction was wholly contrary to the statutory provision as contained in sub-section (6) of section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which has been reproduced hereinabove. 6. So far as the Supreme Court judgment referred by the learned advocate representing the respondents is concerned, it appears there from that the provision of section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was being considered. The Supreme Court in paragraph 44 of the said judgment, while observing that the words of section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act were capable of broader interpretation, also took into consideration, inter alia, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, which specifically prohibits the very "entertainment" of the appeal, if tax is not paid. A distinction has been drawn by the Supreme Court with regard to like situations contained in such similar enactments as the Bombay and Kolkata Municipal Act with that of section 170(b) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. A distinction has been drawn by the Supreme Court with regard to like situations contained in such similar enactments as the Bombay and Kolkata Municipal Act with that of section 170(b) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. As such, the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court while interpreting section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, has no manner of application at all in respect of subsection (6) of section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. For reasons stated above, we allow the appeal with a direction upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to conform to the statutory requirement as envisaged under sub-section (6) of section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, in the event it intends to prefer an appeal against the annual valuation and assessment of the premises in question, which was challenged before the Writ Court. If the statutory appeal is filed and delay in filing of the same is condoned by the Tribunal, it shall hear out the appeal on its merit and pronounce a reasoned order preferably within a period of three months from the date of condonation of delay in filing of the statutory appeal.