Admitted tax as a condition for appeal: late payment after limitation can bar entertainment unless delay is condoned.

Under section 20(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 read with the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, payment of the admitted tax operated as a condition precedent to entertainment of the appeal; payment after expiry of limitation, without condonation, left the appeal time-barred. The commentary also notes that a writ challenge to the provision was maintainable under article 226, but the discrimination argument failed because appellate and revisional remedies were treated as distinct classes with a rational basis, so the classification did not offend article 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the scheme of section 20(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, the admitted tax had to be paid within the period of limitation for the appeal, or whether payment could be made later so long as it was made before the appeal was entertained; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable and whether section 20(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Issue (i): Whether, on the scheme of section 20(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, the admitted tax had to be paid within the period of limitation for the appeal, or whether payment could be made later so long as it was made before the appeal was entertained.

Analysis: The proviso to section 20(1) made payment of the admitted tax a condition precedent to the entertainment of the appeal. Reading the provision with rules 60 to 64 and form S.T. XXIX, the statutory scheme indicated that the memorandum of appeal had to be filed in the prescribed manner and that the admitted tax was expected to be paid before or along with the appeal. If the defect was cured within limitation, the appeal could still be entertained. But where the admitted tax was paid only after the limitation period had expired, the appeal became time-barred unless the delay was condoned. Here, the tax was deposited after limitation and the application for condonation had been rejected.

Conclusion: The requirement of payment of admitted tax operated as a fetter on entertainment of the appeal, and in the facts of the case the appeal was rightly treated as time-barred. This issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable and whether section 20(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Analysis: A genuine challenge to the vires of a statute can be raised under article 226 of the Constitution of India, so the existence of statutory remedies did not by itself bar the petition. On merits, however, the alleged discrimination failed because the appellate and revisional remedies under section 20 operated in different fields, and the statutory bar on revision where an appeal lay showed that the assessees compared were not similarly situated. The classification therefore had a rational basis and did not offend article 14.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, but the challenge to constitutionality failed. This issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the dismissal of the petition, holding that the appeal failed on limitation and that the impugned appellate restriction was not shown to be unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute makes payment of the admitted tax a condition precedent to the entertainment of an appeal, the appeal cannot be treated as entertainable after the limitation period unless the delay is condoned; and a constitutional challenge fails if the alleged discrimination is based on a real statutory distinction between different remedies or classes of orders.

---