Pre-deposit conditions for tax appeals held arbitrary and discriminatory, with restrictive appellate remedies struck down under constitutional equality principles.

A statutory appeal or revision condition requiring pre-deposit of at least 50% of tax or penalty was held unconstitutional where it made access to appellate and revisional remedies depend on an onerous threshold without any real power to relax it. The Court treated such a scheme, in the context of wide assessment and penalty powers, as oppressive, discriminatory, and arbitrary, and struck down the provisos as violating article 14. The separate challenge under article 21 failed because business hardship was not accepted as a distinct infringement of life and personal liberty. The restrictive appellate conditions were therefore invalid, and the remedies were to be restored or refiled as directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the first and second provisos to section 20(1) and the proviso to section 21(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, requiring pre-deposit of at least 50% of the tax or penalty as a condition for appeal or revision, were violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the same provisos also infringed article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the first and second provisos to section 20(1) and the proviso to section 21(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, requiring pre-deposit of at least 50% of the tax or penalty as a condition for appeal or revision, were violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right of appeal is a statutory right, but the statutory scheme must still conform to constitutional guarantees. The impugned provisions did not merely regulate the manner of appeal or revision; they made access to the appellate and revisional forums dependent upon an onerous minimum deposit, without any real power in the authorities to relax that threshold. The scheme of the Act vested wide assessment and penalty powers in the Superintendent of Taxes, while the amended remedies were unavailable unless the dealer could first pay at least half the demand. The effect of this arrangement was to leave even arguably arbitrary or excessive assessments without an effective corrective mechanism. The Court treated arbitrariness as antithetical to equality and held that a law whose practical effect is oppressive, confiscatory, and discriminatory offends article 14.

Conclusion: Yes. The impugned pre-deposit provisos were held to be violative of article 14 and were struck down.

Issue (ii): Whether the same provisos also infringed article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Once the challenge under article 14 succeeded, it was unnecessary to decide the wider question under article 19(1)(g). On article 21, the Court accepted the settled position that the right to carry on trade or business is too remote to be brought within life and personal liberty for this purpose, and therefore the grievance based on business hardship did not establish a distinct violation of article 21.

Conclusion: No. The challenge based on article 21 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge succeeded on the ground of arbitrariness under article 14, with the result that the restrictive appeal and revision conditions were invalid and the writ petitions were allowed, leading to restoration or fresh filing of appellate and revisional remedies as directed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate or revisional remedy becomes unconstitutional when the conditions for accessing it, in the context of wide and potentially arbitrary assessment powers, are so onerous that they render the corrective process illusory, oppressive, and discriminatory, thereby violating article 14.

---