Pre-deposit requirement under sales tax law bars appeal where declaration forms were not furnished and higher tax became payable.

An appeal against an assessment order was treated as subject to the statutory pre-condition in section 9(1-B)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, requiring proof of payment of the tax admitted in the return or otherwise payable during the proceedings, whichever was greater. The text explains that a dealer could not bypass this requirement by claiming a concessional rate where C or D forms had not been furnished for part of the turnover, because the higher tax liability then became relevant to the pre-deposit condition. Since the required forms were not produced even before the Tribunal, the appeal was held not maintainable for non-compliance with the statutory prerequisite.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal against an assessment order was maintainable in view of the pre-condition under section 9(1-B)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, when the dealer had not furnished forms C in respect of part of the turnover and the liability to tax at the higher rate had arisen.

Analysis: Section 9(1-B)(a) required the appellant to furnish satisfactory proof of payment of the tax admitted by him in the return or at any later stage in the proceedings, whichever was greater. The expression "tax due under the Act" was held to refer to the tax admitted to be payable on the disclosed turnover, and the dealer could not avoid the statutory requirement merely by asserting that a concessional rate had been claimed subject to production of forms C or D. The record showed that the requisite forms were not produced even upto the Tribunal stage, and the legal position regarding aluminium coils and other goods had also been settled against the dealer by authoritative pronouncements, making the higher tax liability relevant for the purpose of the pre-deposit requirement.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable for non-compliance with section 9(1-B)(a), and the objection to maintainability failed in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed because the dealer did not satisfy the statutory condition for entertainment of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of the statutory bar on entertainment of an appeal, the dealer must first furnish proof of payment of the tax admitted as payable under the Act, including tax that becomes payable at the higher rate where the requisite declaration forms are not produced.

---