TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (1) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no second appeal is provided for the period under assessment of entry tax?" 2.. The facts in a nutshell, necessary for answering the aforesaid question, are that an order of assessment was passed in the instant case on 26th April, 1979 under the Entry Tax Act for the period from 1st May, 1976 to 22nd October, 1976. An appeal against that order was preferred by the assessee under section 15 of the Entry Tax Act which was dismissed on 18th June, 1980. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 15th April, 1981 on the ground that it was not maintainable inasmuch as no provision for second appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Act No. 22 of 1977. The effect of this amendment was that even under the Entry Tax Act, a second appeal became maintainble with effect from 1st May, 1977. Even so, as already indicated above, the Tribunal took the view that since the assessment proceedings in the instant case were for the period from 1st May, 1976 to 22nd October, 1976 which fell prior to 1st May, 1977 when the amending Act No. 22 of 1977 came into force, a second appeal was not maintainable. As already indicated earlier, in our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is not sustainable. 4.. In Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi AIR 1956 SC 77, section 5B of the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 and 27(1) of the Central Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issued under section 27(1) of the Central Act (31 of 1950) to the appellant to show cause why the order of the Additional Custodian dated 20th March, 1952 should not be set aside. Ultimately the Custodian did set aside that order on 20th May, 1953. The matter was taken up to the Supreme Court by obtaining special leave to appeal. It was contended before the Supreme Court that since in view of section 5B of the East Punjab Act, the order of the Additional Custodian was final, the appellant had a vested right which could not be taken away by section 27(1) of the Central Act 31 of 1950. This contention of the appellant was repelled and it was held in para 12 of the report that while a right of appeal in respect of a pending action may concei....