Revisional remedy cannot be burdened by deposit s that defeat the statute's unrestricted scheme.

Rule 61-A and rule 62 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949, were treated as inconsistent with section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, because they required prior payment of assessed tax before a revision petition could be entertained. The Punjab High Court noted that section 21 was intended to confer an unrestricted revisional remedy, unlike section 20, which expressly imposed a deposit condition for appeals. It further said the rule-making power could regulate procedure but not add a restriction that substantially nullified the statutory remedy; the impugned rules were therefore ultra vires and ineffective, although relief was refused on the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 61-A and rule 62 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949, requiring prior payment of the assessed tax as a condition for entertaining a revision petition, were ultra vires section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The revision power under section 21 was held to be intentionally left unrestricted, unlike the appeal provision in section 20, which expressly imposed a deposit condition. The rule-making power under section 27(1) could regulate procedure for carrying out the Act, but it could not introduce an onerous restriction inconsistent with the legislative scheme of section 21. The Court held that the impugned rules substantially nullified the revisional remedy and were repugnant to the parent statute, though the revisional authority had discretion to refuse interference on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The impugned rules were held to be ultra vires section 21 and without effect, but the writ petition was not granted relief on the facts.

---