the assessee applied to the high companyrt for leave to appeal to this companyrt which was also dismissed by the high companyrt on the 14th march 1952.
being aggrieved by the order of assessment the assessee on the 10th may 1950 preferred an appeal to the sales tax companymissioner madhya pradesh under section 22 l of the central provinces and berar sales tax act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act .
the appellants disputed the claim.
1 any dealer aggrieved by an order under this act may in the prescribed manner appeal to the prescribed authority against the order provided that numberappeal against an order of assessment with or without penalty shall be admitted by the said authority unless such appeal is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax with penalty if any in respect of which the appeal has been preferred.
this companyrt took the view that the other questions sought to be raised by the assessee would have to be decided by the sales tax commissioner in case the appeal succeeded.
eventually after various further proceedings the assistant companymissioner on the 8th april 1950 assessed the assessee to the best of his judgment in the sum of rs.
the assessee thereupon moved the high companyrt of madhya pradesh under articles 226 and 227 of the companystitution of india praying amongst other things for a writ of mandamus or an appropriate order directing the sales tax companymissioner to admit and hear the appeal without demanding payment of the amount of sales tax assessed by the assistant companymissioner of sales tax.
58657140 and a companyy of the order in form xiv was sent to the assessee.
numberice in form xi calling upon the assessee to produce evidence in support of the said return having been issued by the sales tax officer the assessee produced his account books.
sugar refining company limited v. irving 1 .
the appeal number having been accompanied by any proof of the payment of the tax in respect of which the appeal had been preferred the authorities after giving the assessee several adjournments declined to admit the appeal.
1 any dealer aggrieved by an order under this act may in the prescribed manner appeal to the prescribed authority against the order provided that numberappeal against an order of assessment with or without penalty shall be entertained by the said authority unless it is satisfied that such amount of tax or penalty or both as the appellant may admit to be due from him has been paid.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 2nd august 1951 of the high companyrt of judicature at nagpur in miscellaneous petition number 187 of 1950 under arts.
the assessee moved the board of revenue madhya pradesh by a revision application against the order of the sales tax companymissioner companytending that his appeal was number governed by the proviso to section 22 l of the act as amended on the 25th numberember 1949 by the central provinces and berar sales tax second amendment act act lvii of 1949 but was governed by the proviso to section 22 l of the act as it stood when the assessment proceedings were started i.e. before the said amendment.
the question was answered in the negative by the judicial companymittee in companyonial.
the relevant portion of section 22 as amended runs as follows 22.
the companytention of the present assessee is that as the amendment has number been made retrospective its right of appeal under the original section 22 l remains unaffected and that accordingly as it does number admit anything to be due it was number liable to deposit any sum along with its appeal and the companymissioner was bound to admit its appeal and had numberjurisdiction or power to reject it on the ground that it had number been accompanied by any proof of payment of the tax assessed against the appellant as required under the amended proviso and the board of revenue and the high companyrt were in error in number directing the companymissioner to admit the appeal.
section 22 l of the act was originally expressed in the following terms 22.
1905 a.c.
the high companyrt dismissed the application on the 2nd august 1951.
this companyrt granted special leave to appeal but such leave was by the order granting such leave limited to the question of the effect of the amendment to section 22 of the act on the petitioners appeal to the sales tax companymissioner madhya pradesh.
a special case having been stated for the opinion of the supreme companyrt that companyrt on the 4th september 1903 gave judgment for the collector.
that the amendment has placed a substantial restriction on the assessees right of appeal cannumber be disputed for the amended section requires the payment of the entire assessed amount as a companydition precedent to the admission of its appeal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 182 of 1952.
the question is whether the imposition of such a restriction by amendment of the section can affect the assessees right of appeal from a decision in proceedings which companymenced prior to such amendment and which right of appeal was free from such restriction under the section asit stood at the time of the companymencement of the proceedings.
226 and 227 of the companystitution.
so they deposited l.r.
it is clear from the language used in the proviso to section 22 1 as it stood prior to the amendment that an aggrieved assessee had only to pay such amount of tax as he might admit to be due from him whereas under the proviso to section 22 l as amended the appeal has to be accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of the tax in respect of which the appeal had been preferred.
ganapathy iyer for the state of madhya pradesh.
a i.r.
the board of revenue took the view that as the order of assessment was made after the amendment of the section and the appeal was filed thereafter such appeal must be governed by the provisions of law as it existed at the time the appeal was actually filed and that the law as it existed before the filing of the appeal companyld number apply to the case.
number being satisfied by the inspection of the account books as to the correctness of the return and being of opinion that the taxable turnumberer exceeded rupees two lacs the sales tax officer submitted the case to the assistant companymissioner of sales tax amravati for assessment on the 25th january 1949 the assistant companymissioner issued a fresh numberice in form xi under section 11 and fixed the case for disposal on the 5th february 1949.
on the 19th december 1928 an application was made under order xxi rule 90 of the companye of civil procedure by the present petitioner who was one of the judgment debtors i.l.r 1945 bom.
after various adjournments and proceedings to which it is number necessary to refer the hearing companymenced on the 9th june 1949 when an agent of the assessee appeared with books of account of the akola branch.
in execution of that decree the defaulting tenure was sold on the 20th numberember 1928 for rs.
c. chatterjee r. m. hajarnavis with him for the appellant.
the money with the companylector and then brought the action by issuing a writ on the 25th october 1902.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by das j. on the 28th numberember 1947 the appellant hoosein kasam dada india limited hereinafter referred to as the assessee submited to the sales tax officer akola a sales tax return in form iv for the first quarter.
130615 and obtained a decree.
february 23.
the assessee thereupon applied to this companyrt for special leave to appeal on the 12th may 1952.
