Pre-deposit of admitted tax must follow the legally applicable rate; jurisdictional objections do not waive payment obligations.

For the pre-deposit requirement in appeal, admitted tax on bricks had to be computed at the legally applicable notification rates, not the general 2% rate; the assessee's 2% deposit was therefore insufficient. The first proviso to section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act required proof of payment of the full admitted tax, and that condition was not met. A jurisdictional challenge to the Sales Tax Officer did not waive the obligation to deposit admitted tax where liability was still admitted in part. The statutory pre-condition for entertaining the appeals was not satisfied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purpose of the pre-deposit requirement in appeal, the admitted tax on bricks had to be calculated at the general rate of 2% or at the notification rates of 6% and 7%; (ii) whether the assessee had deposited the admitted tax so as to satisfy the first proviso to section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act; (iii) whether a challenge to the Sales Tax Officer's jurisdiction relieved the assessee from depositing any tax before filing the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether, for the purpose of the pre-deposit requirement in appeal, the admitted tax on bricks had to be calculated at the general rate of 2% or at the notification rates of 6% and 7%.

Analysis: The admitted turnover disclosed in the returns had to be taxed according to the rate legally applicable to bricks. Bricks had been brought within section 3-A, and the notifications issued under that provision prescribed the applicable rates for the relevant assessment years. A challenge to the vires of those notifications could not be entertained by the sales tax authorities in appeal or revision. Therefore, the assessee could not compute admitted tax at the general rate under section 3.

Conclusion: The admitted tax had to be calculated at 6% for the assessment year 1961-62 and at 7% for the assessment year 1963-64, not at 2%.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had deposited the admitted tax so as to satisfy the first proviso to section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The first proviso to section 9 required satisfactory proof of payment of the amount of tax admitted to be due. Since the assessee deposited tax only at 2%, while the admitted tax had to be computed at 6% and 7%, the statutory condition was not fulfilled.

Conclusion: The assessee had not deposited the admitted tax within the meaning of the first proviso to section 9.

Issue (iii): Whether a challenge to the Sales Tax Officer's jurisdiction relieved the assessee from depositing any tax before filing the appeal.

Analysis: The assessee did not deny tax liability altogether in the memorandum of appeal and instead admitted liability at 2%. Having made that admission, he could not later contend that no tax was payable for the purpose of the appeal requirement. The jurisdictional objection did not displace the obligation to deposit the admitted tax.

Conclusion: The assessee was not absolved from payment of the tax required under the first proviso to section 9 by reason of his jurisdictional objection.

Final Conclusion: All the framed questions were answered against the assessee, and the statutory pre-condition for entertaining the appeals was not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of a statutory appeal requiring pre-deposit of admitted tax, the tax admitted must be computed at the legally applicable rate, and a challenge to the validity of the taxing notification or to the assessing authority's jurisdiction does not dispense with compliance unless the assessee has denied liability altogether.

---