TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resent writ petition whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 25 per cent of the tax demand, on the strength of the Punjab General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 2000, raised by the Assessing Authority. 3.. In respect of the assessment year 1989-90, the Assessing Authority raised a tax demand of over Rs. 3.34 crores vide order dated August 16, 2002 under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. On the same day, assessment was framed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 raising a demand of Rs. 2,99,084 including a penalty of Rs. 82,000. 4.. The petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, along with an application to entertain the appeal without prior payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....njab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, reads as under: "20(5). No appeal shall be entertained by an appellate authority unless such appeal is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the prior minimum payment of twenty-five per cent of the tax, penalty, if any, imposed and the interest accrued thereon." 7.. The Amended Act has not given retrospective effect to the provisions of section 20(5) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, either expressly or by necessary implication. 8.. Vide separate judgment of even date in Civil Writ Petition No. 17178 of 2003 titled Khazan Chand Nathi Ram v. State of Haryana, it has been held by this Bench that the right of appeal is a vested right which has to be seen on the date the lis commences. It has been fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly based on the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Hardeodas Jagannath's case [1970] 26 STC 10, as well as a division Reported in [2004] 136 STC 261. Bench judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander & Co. v. State of Punjab [1979] STC 331. The division Bench judgment referred to does not deal with the question arising in the present case. Since we have preferred to follow the earlier Constitution Bench judgment in Garikapati Veeraya's case AIR 1957 SC 540, the said judgment of the learned single Bench does not lay down good law. In view of various judgments referred to above and on the reading of section 61(2) of the HVAT Act, 2003 it is concluded that section 61(2) of the HVAT Act does not give any retrospective effect to the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the HGST Act with a liability or obligation to pre-deposit the amount of tax, interest and penalty. Such obligation or liability confers a right in favour of the State to insist upon pre-deposit of tax, interest or penalty. From the judgments of the honourble Supreme Court in Hoosein Kasam Dada's case [1953] 4 STC 114 and Garikapati Veeraya's case AIR 1957 SC 540, it is apparent that the right of appeal is a vested right and accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences. Such right is actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced. Such right is to be governed by the law prevailing on the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the law that prevails on the date of its decisio....