Pre-deposit of penalty cannot be read back into an amended appeal provision when the legislature deleted that requirement.

An amended appeal provision under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was construed to remove the earlier requirement of pre-deposit of penalty before an appeal could be entertained. The court held that the deletion of words referring to payment of penalty had to be given full effect, because reading "tax" to include penalty would defeat the legislative purpose of easing hardship. The Tribunal's insistence on prior deposit was therefore treated as an to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, and the appellate orders refusing to hear the matter were quashed. The appeals were directed to be heard on merits without pre-deposit of penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for an appeal under section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 against an order levying penalty, the dealer must first deposit the penalty amount for the appeal to be entertained.

Analysis: The amended text of section 21(6) omitted the earlier words requiring payment of "the penalty, if any", and the legislative history showed that the deletion was made to remove hardship caused by insisting on payment of penalty before an appeal could be heard. The proper construction was therefore to give effect to the amendment's object and not to read the word "tax" as including penalty, since that would defeat the express legislative purpose. The Tribunal's insistence on prior deposit of penalty amounted to a refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and justified supervisory relief.

Conclusion: The requirement of depositing penalty before an appeal could be entertained was held to be inapplicable, and the Tribunal was directed to hear the appeals without insisting on such deposit.

Final Conclusion: The orders refusing to entertain the appeals were quashed and the appeals were ordered to be heard on merits without pre-deposit of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an amendment deliberately omits a requirement that previously compelled pre-deposit of penalty, the court must construe the provision so as to give effect to that legislative purpose and not revive the deleted requirement by interpretation.

---