Disputed tax court-fee applies where assessment is still challenged, but deficit should first be cured before rejection.

Where an assessee continues to challenge an assessment order after remand, the order is still treated as in contest for computing disputed tax, and ad valorem court-fee under section 32(1)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was upheld on the disputed tax. However, if court-fee is deficient, the Tribunal should not reject the appeal outright; it must first give the assessee an opportunity to make good the deficit and then decide the appeal according to law. The article states that the revisions failed overall, but the assessee obtained the limited procedural right to cure the court-fee defect before rejection.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, for appeals challenging assessment orders after remand by the appellate authority, court-fee was payable on the disputed tax under section 32(1)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948; (ii) whether the Tribunal could reject the appeals straightway for deficiency in court-fee without granting an opportunity to make good the deficit.

Issue (i): whether, for appeals challenging assessment orders after remand by the appellate authority, court-fee was payable on the disputed tax under section 32(1)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The prayer in appeal was not confined to challenging the remand order alone; the assessee also sought acceptance of its books of account and cancellation of the additional tax demand. So long as the assessment order continued to be assailed in appeal, it could not be treated as having ceased to exist for the purpose of determining disputed tax. The claim itself showed that the assessment order was still in contest and the appeal was therefore subject to ad valorem court-fee on the disputed tax.

Conclusion: The requirement of paying court-fee at the rate of 71/2 per cent of the disputed tax was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal could reject the appeals straightway for deficiency in court-fee without granting an opportunity to make good the deficit.

Analysis: Even if there was a deficiency in court-fee, the proper course was to afford the assessee an opportunity to make up the deficiency and then decide the appeals according to law. Straightaway rejecting the appeals as defective was not justified.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was required to allow the assessee an opportunity to make good the deficiency in court-fee, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed overall, but the assessee obtained a limited procedural benefit, namely an to cure the court-fee defect before any rejection of the appeals on that ground.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee continues to challenge the assessment demand in appeal, the assessment order is not treated as extinguished for computing disputed tax, and a deficiency in court-fee should ordinarily be cured by granting an opportunity before rejection of the appeal.

---