1956 (2) TMI 47 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 22(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act
- Applicability of rules for second appeal before the Commissioner of Sales Tax
- Requirement of payment of tax as a condition precedent to the admission of appeal

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the interpretation of section 22(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act concerning the payment of tax as a condition precedent to the admission of appeal. The petitioner filed a second appeal before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, seeking a stay on the recovery of a tax amount assessed on him. The Commissioner refused to grant a stay, citing the provisions of the Act in force at the time of filing returns. The petitioner argued that the earlier provision should apply based on a Supreme Court decision, which the court upheld.

2. The issue of the applicability of rules for a second appeal before the Commissioner was raised in the judgment. The Deputy Advocate-General contended that since the rules for a second appeal were made subsequent to the filing of returns, the petitioner could not rely on the provisions of the Act at the time of filing returns. However, the court clarified that the provision for an appeal is in the rules, while the requirement of tax payment is in the Act itself. The court emphasized that the original section 22(1) encompassed both first and second appeals, allowing the petitioner to challenge the tax assessment without depositing the full amount.

3. The judgment addressed the requirement of payment of tax as a condition precedent to the admission of an appeal. The court compared the original and amended provisions of section 22(1) to determine the petitioner's entitlement to appeal without depositing the full tax amount. The court concluded that the petitioner was not bound to deposit the entire tax assessed, except the amount admitted to be due. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, directing the refund of the security deposited by the petitioner and making no order as to costs.

In summary, the judgment clarified the interpretation of section 22(1) of the Sales Tax Act, the application of rules for second appeals, and the necessity of tax payment for appeal admission. The court upheld the petitioner's right to challenge the tax assessment without depositing the full amount and allowed the petition accordingly.