JUDGMENT : Kurian, J. Heard the counsel on both the sides. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondents for levy of property tax. 4. According to the appellants, being an educational institution it is wholly exempted from payment of property tax. The High Court, however, declined to go into the question, in view of the alternate remedy available to the appellants under Section 93 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Thus, aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court. 5. Section 93 of the said Act provides for appeals. Section 93(1) reads as follows:- “93. Appeals against assessment.- (1) An appeal against the assessment or levy of, or against the refusal to refund, any tax under this Act shall lie to the District Court.” 6. The provisions would clearly show that against any levy as well, an appeal will lie. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is open to the Appellate Authority to go into the question as to whether the appellant No.1/institution was liable to be exempted as well. 7. Therefore, clarifying that it is open to the appellants to take all available contentions including their entitlement to exemption from payment of property tax, this appeal is disposed of. 8. However, we make it clear that in case an appeal is filed within thirty days from today, the Appellate Authority may not dismiss it on the ground of delay. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.