Substantive right of appeal and prospectivity: amended pre-deposit condition applied only to appeals filed after the change.

An amendment imposing proof of payment of tax due as a condition for admission of appeal was held to affect a substantive vested right of appeal, not a mere matter of procedure. The presumption against retrospectivity applied because the amendment did not expressly or by necessary implication operate retroactively. The decisive factors were when the assessment proceedings were initiated and when the appeal was filed: where both occurred after the amendment, the amended condition governed; where the appellate right had already crystallised before amendment, the earlier law continued to apply. The dealer's revision succeeded, and the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended proviso to section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, requiring proof of payment of tax due from the appellant as a condition for admission of appeal, was procedural and applicable to all appeals filed after the amendment, or whether it applied only to cases where the accounting period commenced after the amendment.

Analysis: The amended provision of 22 April 1988 substituted the earlier requirement of depositing the tax admitted by the appellant with a more onerous requirement of depositing the tax due from the appellant. The governing principle is that an amendment is presumed to operate prospectively unless retrospective effect is expressly provided or necessarily implied. A restriction that impairs or whittles down the right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure; it affects a substantive vested right. Applying the settled line of authority, the decisive factor is when the assessment proceedings were initiated and when the appeal was filed. Where both the assessment and appeal occurred after the amendment came into force, application of the amended condition does not amount to retrospective operation. On the other hand, where the proceedings and the appellate right had already crystallised before the amendment, the old law continues to govern that right.

Conclusion: The amended proviso was not procedural law. It applied to appeals from assessments made and appeals filed during the period when the amendment remained in force, irrespective of the accounting period to which the assessment related. The revision succeeded and the dealer's appeal was correctly dismissed by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment that imposes a more onerous precondition for admission of an appeal affects a substantive vested right of appeal and applies prospectively unless the legislature expressly or by necessary implication makes it retrospective.

---