Revisional prepayment discretion under sales tax law upheld where statute left payment conditions to the authority's judgment.

Section 21 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act required prepayment of tax for an appeal, but Section 22 contained no equivalent mandatory condition for a revision application. On that construction, Rule 48 was inconsistent with the statute to the extent it made prior payment obligatory in every revision arising from an appellate order, because the legislature left prepayment in revision to the revisional authority's discretion. The amended rule reflected that discretionary scheme. The revisional authority was therefore entitled to insist on part-payment as a condition for admitting the revision, and the challenge to the prepayment requirement failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 48 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules was ultra vires to the extent it required payment of tax before a revision application could be entertained, and whether the revisional authority could insist on part-payment of the tax as a condition for admitting the revision.

Analysis: Section 21 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 expressly made payment of tax a condition for entertaining an appeal, while Section 22 contained no corresponding mandatory requirement for revision applications. The absence of such an express bar in Section 22 indicated that the legislature left the matter of prepayment in revision to the discretion of the revisional authority. On that construction, the original form of Rule 48, which made prior payment obligatory in every revision arising from an appellate order, was inconsistent with the statute; however, the amended form of the rule recognized the discretionary nature of the requirement. Since the Additional Collector directed payment of Rs. 200 out of the tax due before admitting the revision, the order was within jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the requirement of prepayment failed, and the dismissal of the revision application was upheld.

---