Crystallised right to revisional relief bars later court-fee burden; earlier fee payment remained sufficient.

The right to pursue revisional relief crystallised when the proceeding was initiated, so a later-amended court-fee requirement could not be applied retrospectively to defeat that remedy. The Tribunal held that the fee already paid under the unamended Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was sufficient, and rejection of the revisional application for alleged insufficiency of court fees was contrary to law. The rejection order was set aside, and the revisional application was directed to be entertained and decided on merits after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's revisional application filed under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was liable to be rejected for payment of court fees under the amended sales tax law, or whether the court fee payable was governed by the unamended 1941 Act.

Analysis: The application challenged the rejection of revision on the ground of insufficient court fees. The Tribunal applied the principle that the right of a party in respect of appellate or revisional remedies crystallises when the proceedings are initiated, and that an onerous procedural condition introduced later cannot be imposed so as to prejudice that right. On that basis, the fee already paid under the previous Act was treated as sufficient, and the rejection order was found to be contrary to law.

Conclusion: The revisional application could not be rejected for non-payment of court fees under the amended law. The order dated 18 January 2001 was set aside and the revisional application was directed to be entertained and decided on merits after hearing the petitioner.

---