Vested right of appeal survives later delay-limitation amendment where proceedings began earlier and retrospectivity is not .

A vested right of appeal accrues when assessment proceedings are initiated, and that right includes the corresponding entitlement to seek condonation of delay under the law then in force. An amendment limiting the time for condonation does not apply to pending accrued rights unless retrospective operation is stated expressly or by necessary intendment. In the absence of such intention, the pre-existing appellate remedy is preserved by the general clauses statute and the amended proviso cannot defeat it. The appeal was therefore governed by the unamended provision, and the order allowing the appeal and remanding the matter for decision on merits was upheld as legally correct.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to the proviso to section 31(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, limiting the time for condonation of delay, applied to an appeal arising from proceedings that had already commenced before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The right of appeal was held to be a vested substantive right which accrued when the assessment proceedings were initiated. That right carried with it the corresponding right to seek condonation of delay under the unamended law. An amendment restricting that right would not govern pending accrued rights unless it was made retrospective by express words or necessary intendment. In the absence of such intention, section 8 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891 preserved the pre-existing right and the old law continued to govern the appeal. The amended proviso could not be applied so as to destroy the vested appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The appeal was governed by the unamended section 31(1), and the assessee was entitled to seek condonation of delay under the earlier provision. The Tribunal's order allowing the appeal and remanding the matter for disposal on merits was in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A vested right of appeal is preserved for proceedings already initiated, and a subsequent amendment restricting that right does not apply retrospectively unless the statute clearly so provides.

---