1962 (3) TMI 67 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court quashes Deputy Commissioner's orders, directs appeal disposal. Parties bear costs, refund security deposit.

The court allowed the petition, quashing the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur, and directed him to receive and dispose of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to entertain second appeals.2. Whether remedial rights under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, were abrogated by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959.3. Interpretation of Section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959, regarding vested rights of appeal.4. Impact of increased court fees under the new Act on the right of appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to entertain second appeals:The petitioners challenged the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur, who declined to entertain second appeals against the orders of assessment of sales tax. The Deputy Commissioner based his decision on the jurisdiction conferred by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which stated that the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, had jurisdiction to entertain such appeals.2. Whether remedial rights under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, were abrogated by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959:The court examined whether the remedial rights available under the repealed Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, were abrogated by the provisions of the new Act. It was noted that the assessees had filed their returns and received notices before the commencement of the new Act on 1st April 1959. The court referenced the case of Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, which established that a 'lis' arises when there is a proposition by one party and an opposition by another. The court concluded that the 'lis' in these cases arose before the new Act came into force, and thus the right to the remedy available under the repealed Act was not taken away by the new Act.3. Interpretation of Section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959, regarding vested rights of appeal:Section 52 of the new Act was scrutinized, which repealed the previous Acts but included a proviso saving all rights acquired under the repealed Acts. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 provided that any second appeal pending at the commencement of the new Act would continue to be governed by the provisions of the repealed Act. The court emphasized that even without this enactment, the vested rights of appeal would remain intact. The court held that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ganpat Rai Hiralal v. Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd. applied, ensuring that vested rights of appeal were not impaired by the new Act.4. Impact of increased court fees under the new Act on the right of appeal:The court noted that the new Act required a higher court fee for second appeals compared to the repealed Act. The Supreme Court's decision in State of Bombay v. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. was cited, which held that imposing a more onerous condition on the right of appeal is not merely a procedural matter but impairs a substantive right. Therefore, such an enactment is not retrospective unless explicitly stated.Conclusion:The court allowed the petition, quashing the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur, and directed him to receive and dispose of the second appeals in accordance with the law. The court also ordered that the parties bear their own costs and that the security amount deposited by the petitioners be refunded.Petition allowed.