Appeal and review rights extend to sureties where recovery is pursued against any person under the sales tax statute.

The statutory scheme under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 is explained as not limiting appeal and review remedies to the dealer alone. Provisions governing appeals, revision, review and refund use the broader expressions "person" and "any person", and the prescribed forms also contemplate an appellant or applicant beyond a dealer. On that reading, a surety or any other person from whom tax, penalty or interest is sought to be recovered is a person aggrieved and may maintain appellate and review proceedings. The plain meaning of the statute is preferred, and the remedy cannot be restricted by reading "dealer" into the text.

---

---

Issues: Whether a surety or any other person from whom tax, penalty or interest is sought to be recovered has locus to file an appeal and review under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, and whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the petitioners' appeals for want of locus standi.

Analysis: The statutory scheme used different expressions in the relevant provisions. While section 39 dealt with appeals from orders passed under the Act, sub-section (5) referred to recovery of tax, penalty and interest from the "person" liable, not merely the "dealer". Sections 40 and 41 similarly referred to "a person" and "any person", and section 43 contemplated refund to a "dealer or any other person". The prescribed appeal and review forms also proceeded on the basis of an appellant or applicant, not exclusively a dealer. On a plain reading of these provisions, the legislative intent was not to confine appellate or review remedies only to the dealer. A surety against whom recovery is pursued is also a person aggrieved, and there was no justification to substitute the word "dealer" for "person" or to depart from the plain meaning rule.

Conclusion: The petitioners, as sureties/persons from whom recovery was sought, had the right to maintain the appeals and review applications, and the rejection of the appeals for lack of locus standi was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the appellate order was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to hear and decide the petitioners' appeals on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute, in provisions governing appeal, revision, review and refund, uses the expression "person" rather than restricting the remedy to the "dealer", the right of appeal and review extends to any person aggrieved by recovery proceedings, including a surety.

---