Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of In Re: Appeal of Chartiers Valley School District from Assessment of Property of Development Dimensions International, Inc., No. GD 81-22289.
Dusty Elias, with her Victor R. Delle Donne, and David F. Toal, Baskin and Sears, P.C., for appellant.
Thomas J. Dempsey, with him William J. Fahey and William P. Bresnahan, for appellee.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Williams, Jr. and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 593]
This matter questions the applicability of the appeal period found in the Judicial Code*fn1 to the provisions of the act governing Assessments in Counties of the Second Class, Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 626, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 5452.1-5452.20.
On June 26, 1981, the Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County (Board) rendered a decision reducing the assessment on certain real estate owned by Development Dimensions International (DDI). Some forty-eight days later, on August 13, 1981, the taxing authority, Chartiers
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 594]
Valley School District, entered an appeal of that determination to the common pleas court. DDI filed preliminary objections to the appeal, with a concomitant Motion to Quash, asserting that in compliance with Section 5571(b) of the Judicial Code,*fn2 the appeal should have been filed within thirty days after the Board's decision, and was therefore untimely.
The common pleas court denied the motion based on the content of 72 P.S. § 5452.12,*fn3 which provides for a sixty day appeal period. That order was later amended to include the certification of a controlling issue of law necessary for an interlocutory appeal.
The case sub judice involves substantially the same issue as is raised in Crown v. Ross Township, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 588, 449 A.2d 878 (1982).*fn4 Our analysis therein, that the provisions of the Judicial Code control, governs here. We stated in Crown that the Judicial Code constitutes "an effort to create a uniform system covering appeals, and should be construed to repeal conflicting provisions," particularly of those acts to which some reference is made in Section 2 of the Judiciary Act Repealer Act, 42 Pa. C.S.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 595]
§ 20002(g).*fn5 Cf. Borough of West Homestead v. Mesta Machine Co., 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. ...