Statutory revisional remedy may be made conditional without violating freedom to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).

The statutory right to file a revision is not a fundamental right, and the Legislature may lawfully attach conditions to that remedy. Requiring deposit of the security demanded before a revision against an order for furnishing security can be maintained affects only the exercise of the revisional remedy, not the freedom to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g). The condition is therefore not an unreasonable restriction on business activity, because the Legislature was not obliged to confer the revision remedy at all and could regulate it by appropriate terms. The second proviso to section 8-A(6) was upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second proviso to section 8-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, requiring deposit of the security demanded before a revision against an order for furnishing security can be maintained, imposes an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right to file a revision application is a creature of statute and not a fundamental right. The condition requiring security before the revisional remedy can be invoked is attached only to the exercise of that statutory right and not to the carrying on of the business itself. Since the Legislature was not bound to confer a revisional remedy at all, it was competent to subject that remedy to conditions it considered appropriate. The restriction therefore does not operate as a constitutional infringement of the freedom to carry on business.

Conclusion: The second proviso to section 8-A(6) is valid and the question is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory revisional right may be made conditional by the Legislature, and a condition attached only to the exercise of that remedy does not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on business.

---