Appellate precondition discrimination under Article 14: tax payment requirement for one class of appeals was struck down.

Section 21(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was discriminatory because it made an appeal against a revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner under section 20(2) entertainable only on proof of payment of tax, while comparable appeals against other orders could proceed without that precondition and with stay relief in some cases. The court held that this classification lacked an intelligible differentia linked to the object of the provision and imposed a hostile procedural burden on similarly situated assessees. The provision was therefore unconstitutional under Article 14 and liable to be struck down to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 21(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as it makes an appeal against a revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner under section 20(2) entertainable only on proof of payment of the tax.

Analysis: The appellate scheme under the Act treated similarly situated assessees differently. Appeals against revisional or appellate orders passed by authorities other than the Deputy Commissioner could be pursued without first paying the disputed tax, and in some instances a stay of collection was available. By contrast, an appeal against a revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner under section 20(2) was barred unless satisfactory proof of payment of tax was produced, and no corresponding stay power existed. The classification was not supported by any intelligible differentia linked to the object of the provision. The distinction rested only on the authority passing the order, not on any relevant feature of the assessment or the amount involved. A procedural restriction that burdened one set of first appeals while leaving comparable appeals unfettered was held to create hostile discrimination.

Conclusion: Section 21(6), to the extent that it imposed a precondition of payment of tax for entertaining an appeal against an order of the Deputy Commissioner under section 20(2), was held unconstitutional under Article 14 and liable to be struck down.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory classification governing appellate procedure must rest on an intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the object of the law; if similarly situated assessees are subjected to materially different appellate burdens without such nexus, the provision is discriminatory and void under Article 14.

---