1963 (11) TMI 70 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 21(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act regarding the necessity of depositing penalty for appeal entertainability.

The judgment by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. addressed the question of whether a dealer must deposit the penalty amount under section 21(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act to make an appeal entertainable. The judge analyzed the history of the provision, noting that the requirement to deposit both tax and penalty was removed by Amending Act XXVI of 1959 due to causing hardship to dealers. The judge emphasized that the legislature's intention was to relieve this hardship by deleting the reference to penalty. The judge highlighted that interpreting "tax" to include penalty would defeat the legislative intent of the amendment. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the judge differentiated the present case from the issue of including penalty in assessment proceedings. The judge concluded that the Tribunal had misconstrued its powers by refusing to entertain appeals without the penalty deposit, emphasizing the Tribunal's duty to hear and dispose of appeals properly. Consequently, the judge quashed the Tribunal's orders refusing to entertain appeals without penalty deposits and directed the Tribunal to hear appeals without insisting on penalty deposits, issuing writs of certiorari and mandamus to ensure the Tribunal performs its legal functions. The judge made no order as to costs in the circumstances.

In summary, the judgment delves into the legislative intent behind amending section 21(6) of the Act to remove the requirement of depositing penalty for appeal entertainability. It underscores the importance of interpreting the law in line with legislative objectives to prevent perpetuating hardships faced by dealers. The judge clarifies that the word "tax" should not be construed to include penalty post-amendment, as it would go against the legislative intent. The judgment also highlights the Tribunal's duty to hear appeals properly and emphasizes that the Tribunal's refusal to entertain appeals due to penalty non-deposit amounts to a misinterpretation of its jurisdiction. Ultimately, the judge quashes the Tribunal's orders and directs the Tribunal to hear appeals without insisting on penalty deposits, ensuring the proper administration of justice.