Vested right of appeal cannot be burdened by a later tax-deposit amendment unless retrospective intent is clear.

The right of appeal was treated as a substantive vested right that accrued when assessment proceedings commenced before the first-instance authority. A later amendment requiring proof of payment of the assessed tax as a condition for admission of the appeal could not curtail that right unless retrospective application was clearly expressed or necessarily implied. Because the amended proviso created a substantial additional burden, it was held inapplicable to pending proceedings, and the appeal had to be admitted without insisting on proof of payment of the assessed tax.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended proviso to Section 22(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, requiring proof of payment of the assessed tax as a condition for admission of an appeal, applied to an appeal arising from assessment proceedings that had commenced before the amendment.

Analysis: The right of appeal was treated as a substantive and vested right that accrued on the initiation of the proceedings in the court or tribunal of first instance. Such a right could not be taken away or burdened by a later amendment unless the statute made that intention clear by express words or necessary intendment. The amended proviso imposed a substantial restriction by requiring deposit of the assessed tax before the appeal could be entertained, and it was held to be inapplicable to proceedings already pending when the amendment came into force.

Conclusion: The amended proviso did not govern the assessee's appeal, and the Commissioner was required to admit the appeal without insisting on proof of payment of the assessed tax; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A vested right of appeal arising on commencement of proceedings is substantive in nature and is not affected by a later procedural or fiscal amendment unless retrospective application is clearly expressed or necessarily implied.

---