Pre-deposit compliance under sales tax law was mandatory, and later amendment did not retrospectively save an earlier appeal.

A statutory pre-deposit requirement under section 20(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act had to be specifically invoked through the proviso if relief was sought; because no such application or prayer was made, rejection of the appeal for non-payment of the demanded tax was justified. The later amendment to section 20(3), which came into force on 1 April 1970, did not operate retrospectively to govern an appeal filed earlier, so the appeal remained subject to the law in force when instituted. The revision petition accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was rightly rejected for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under section 20(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, when no application was made for relief under the proviso; (ii) Whether the amendment to section 20(3), which came into force on 1 April 1970, applied retrospectively to an appeal filed earlier.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was rightly rejected for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under section 20(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, when no application was made for relief under the proviso.

Analysis: The requirement in the proviso to section 20(3) had to be specifically invoked by the appellant if he sought the benefit of that provision. No application was made before the Deputy Commissioner, nor was any such prayer included in the appeal. In the absence of compliance with the statutory condition and without invoking the proviso, rejection of the appeal for non-payment of the demanded tax was justified.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with section 20(3) was valid and is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to section 20(3), which came into force on 1 April 1970, applied retrospectively to an appeal filed earlier.

Analysis: The appeal had been filed on 14 November 1969, before the amendment came into force. The amended provision could not be given retrospective effect so as to govern an already filed appeal, and the matter had to be decided under the law as it stood when the appeal was instituted.

Conclusion: The amendment to section 20(3) did not apply retrospectively and is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition was liable to fail, as the appeal was properly rejected and the subsequent amendment did not alter that result.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory pre-deposit condition must be complied with in the manner prescribed by the statute, and an amendment affecting that condition will not operate retrospectively to validate an earlier appeal unless the legislature clearly so provides.

---