1985 (11) TMI 217 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under section 44(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act and section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Validity of the order under section 38 in Sales Tax Appeal No. 329/PBR/81 for the assessment period of 1st January, 1976 to 31st December, 1976.
3. Dispute regarding the requirement to deposit 75% of the balance demand for appeal under the amended section 38(3-A) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act.
4. Consideration of the right of appeal as a vested substantive right under the law.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The applicant-assessee filed an application under section 44(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act and section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act challenging the order under section 38 for the assessment period of 1976. The applicant was assessed to sales tax by the assessing authority on 6th December 1979, following non-submission of returns as required by law during the assessment period.

2. The assessing authority raised a demand under the Central Act due to the non-submission of returns, leading to a first appeal by the applicant. Despite depositing 1/3rd of the balance demand, the appeal was summarily rejected, prompting the applicant to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the rejection based on the amended provisions of section 38, requiring 75% of the balance amount to be paid along with the appeal submission.

3. The applicant contended that since the assessment proceedings began before the amendment to section 38, the old provisions should apply, citing a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the substantive right of appeal. The applicant argued that the amended section 38(3-A) should not affect their right of appeal, as it was initiated under the previous law. The Court agreed that a question of law arose regarding the applicability of the amended provision and directed the Tribunal to refer the question for the opinion of the Court.

4. The Court concluded that the question of law proposed by the applicant was valid, considering the circumstances of the case. Emphasizing the importance of the right of appeal as a substantive right, the Court highlighted the need for a correct interpretation of the provisions in force before and after the amendment to section 38. The Tribunal was directed to refer the question for the Court's opinion, ultimately allowing the petition without costs.