Maintainability of admitted appeals cannot be defeated by later validating tax amendment; appeals restored for merits.

An appeal admitted as properly filed after cure of the admitted-tax defect could not later be treated as incompetent because a subsequent validating amendment altered the underlying levy on bricks; maintainability had to be judged when the appeal was first entertained, and the earlier mandamus for refund continued to operate until withdrawn or discharged. The challenge to the validating amendment also failed because its validity had already been upheld in a Division Bench decision. The order rejecting the appeals as incompetent was therefore unsustainable, and the appeals were restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals, once accepted as properly filed after the defect regarding deposit of admitted tax was cured by the appellate authority's order, could later be treated as incompetent because of a subsequent amendment validating the levy on bricks. (ii) Whether the validating amendment assailed by the petitioner was invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals, once accepted as properly filed after the defect regarding deposit of admitted tax was cured by the appellate authority's order, could later be treated as incompetent because of a subsequent amendment validating the levy on bricks.

Analysis: The appellate authority had earlier treated the appeals as in order and thereby accepted the petitioner's plea that, in the circumstances, the admitted tax should be deemed to have been paid. Once that position was reached, the appeals stood admitted as proper appeals. Their maintainability had to be judged when they were first taken up, and a later change in law could not retrospectively make them incompetent. The subsisting mandamus for refund also continued to bind the assessing authority until withdrawn or discharged.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed, and the appeals could not be rejected as incompetent on account of the subsequent amendment.

Issue (ii): Whether the validating amendment assailed by the petitioner was invalid.

Analysis: The challenge to the amendment could not succeed because the validity of the validating enactment had already been upheld by a Division Bench decision of the Court.

Conclusion: The amendment was held to be valid.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the appeals as incompetent was unsustainable, and the appeals were directed to be restored for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal that has been admitted as properly filed cannot be rendered incompetent by a subsequent change in law affecting the underlying tax liability.

---