Statutory pre-deposit for sales tax appeals is mandatory and cannot be bypassed by deferment incentives.

A statutory appeal under section 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act required timely filing together with proof of payment of the admitted tax and 12.5% of the disputed tax; non-compliance was treated as a substantive defect and not a curable irregularity after the prescribed period. The amended second proviso, in force when the appeal was filed in 2005, governed the appeal even though the assessment related to 2001-02. Sales tax deferment incentive granted by the Industries Department did not waive or override the statutory pre-deposit condition. The revisions therefore failed and the appellate orders were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal under section 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was maintainable without proof of payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax and whether the omission could be cured beyond the prescribed period; (ii) Whether the second proviso to section 19(1), as substituted with effect from 30 November 2001, applied to an appeal filed in 2005 against an assessment for the year 2001-02; (iii) Whether sales tax deferment incentive granted by the Industries Department exempted the dealer from compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal under section 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was maintainable without proof of payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax and whether the omission could be cured beyond the prescribed period.

Analysis: The appeal provision was held to impose twin conditions for a valid appeal, namely filing within time and accompaniment by proof of payment of the admitted tax and 12.5% of the disputed tax. The defect was treated as substantive for purposes of admission of the appeal, and not as a curable irregularity capable of being regularised after the statutory period had expired. The appellate authority therefore had no jurisdiction to admit the appeal when the prescribed payment was not made within the relevant time limit.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

Issue (ii): Whether the second proviso to section 19(1), as substituted with effect from 30 November 2001, applied to an appeal filed in 2005 against an assessment for the year 2001-02.

Analysis: The right of appeal was treated as a statutory right governed by the law in force on the date of filing of the appeal. Since the appeal was filed in July 2005, the amended proviso was already part of the statute book. The assessment year did not control the applicable procedural requirement for filing the appeal.

Conclusion: The amended second proviso applied to the appeal.

Issue (iii): Whether sales tax deferment incentive granted by the Industries Department exempted the dealer from compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The incentive order itself made the benefit subject to use of the sales tax incentive for deferment of industry only. It did not waive or override the appellate requirement under the sales tax statute. The dealer could not rely on the deferment scheme to treat the disputed tax as already paid for purposes of appeal admission.

Conclusion: The deferment incentive did not dispense with compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed because the dealer did not satisfy the mandatory conditions for admission of the appeals, and the appellate and tribunal orders were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appeal can be entertained only if the conditions prescribed by the appeal provision are satisfied, and the requirement of pre-deposit cannot be displaced by an independent incentive or treated as curable after the statutory time limit.

---