Pre-deposit requirement in preserved appellate proceedings under a repealed tax law held inapplicable; discrimination challenge failed.

The statutory pre-deposit requirement under section 53(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was held inapplicable to appeals under section 53(2)(i) against orders of the Appellate Board passed under the repealed Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. The preserved appellate remedy under section 53(2), read with the scheme of the new Act and the admitted availability of a reference remedy under section 72 without deposit, showed that the Legislature did not intend the deposit condition to govern those earlier appeals. On that construction, dealers using the preserved appeal route were not treated differently from those using the reference route, so the discrimination challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the deposit requirement under section 53(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 applies to appeals filed under section 53(2)(i) against orders of the Appellate Board under the repealed Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, and whether the provision is discriminatory.

Analysis: The appeal right against orders passed under the repealed Act was preserved under section 53(2), and the respondents conceded that the amended scheme under section 72 provided a reference remedy against such orders without any deposit requirement. On that basis, the deposit condition in section 53(5) was held inapplicable to appeals arising from orders of the Appellate Board under the repealed Act. Once that construction was adopted, dealers pursuing the earlier reference route and dealers filing appeal under the preserved appellate provision were not treated differently for the purpose of deposit.

Conclusion: The deposit requirement under section 53(5) does not apply to appeals under section 53(2)(i) against orders of the Appellate Board under the repealed Act, and the challenge based on discrimination fails.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory pre-deposit condition will not be applied to preserved appellate proceedings from a repealed enactment where the scheme of the new Act, read with the admitted position of the parties, shows that such condition was not intended to govern those appeals.

---