Vested appellate rights include stay power, and a selective amendment stripping that remedy was struck down as invalid.

A vested right of appeal under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was held to include the incidental power to seek stay of recovery, because an appeal must remain effective and not be rendered nugatory in deserving cases. The amendment inserting section 22(3A) and altering section 22(5) was treated as impermissibly denying that stay power only for appeals under section 20, without sufficient rationale. For proceedings and appeals already commenced before 1 April 1988, the unamended law continued to apply, and stay applications had to be considered on their merits. The amendment was therefore struck down as invalid and ultra vires.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment inserting sub-section (3A) into section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the consequential change to section 22(5), could validly take away the Appellate Tribunal's power to grant stay of recovery in appeals arising under section 20, and whether the amendment was unconstitutional and ultra vires.

Analysis: The right of appeal is a vested substantive right governed by the law in force when proceedings commence. Where that right existed under the unamended provision, a subsequent amendment cannot destroy the incidents essential to its effective exercise. The power to grant stay pending appeal was treated as incidental and necessary to make the appellate jurisdiction effective, because without such power the appeal could be rendered nugatory in deserving cases. The amendment singled out appeals against orders under section 20 for denial of stay while retaining stay power in other appeals, and this was held to be without sufficient rationale. For proceedings and appeals already commenced before 1 April 1988, the old law continued to apply, and the Tribunal had to consider stay applications on their merits.

Conclusion: The amendment removing the Tribunal's stay power in appeals under section 20 was invalid. Sub-section (3A) inserted into section 22 and the consequential amendment to section 22(5) were struck down, and the Tribunal was directed to entertain and decide stay applications under the unamended law.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment cannot retrospectively extinguish the effective incidents of a vested appellate right, including an incidental power essential to make the appeal efficacious.

---