1999 (2) TMI 652 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of enhanced fees on appeal memorandum as per amended rule.
2. Interpretation of whether fee payable at the time of order of assessment governs the case.
3. Determination of whether amendment to fees on appeal memorandum is procedural or substantive.
4. Analysis of precedent cases regarding the right of appeal as a substantive right.
5. Examination of whether an increase in fee impairs substantive right of appeal.
6. Consideration of the timing of amendment in relation to the initiation of proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, passed a common order requiring appellants to pay enhanced fees on appeal memoranda per the amended rule. The issue arose when some appellants, including the petitioner, questioned the application of the amended provisions. The Tribunal considered the applicability of the amended fee structure introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 78 of 1986.

2. The petitioner argued that the fee payable at the time of the order of assessment should determine the case, emphasizing the preservation of rights accrued at that stage. The timing of filing the appeal was deemed irrelevant in this context.

3. The key issue revolved around whether the amendment to fees constituted a procedural or substantive matter. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal deliberated on the nature of the right of appeal as a vested right that cannot be easily altered without clear statutory intent.

4. Precedent cases, such as Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasized that the right of appeal is substantive and becomes vested when proceedings commence before an inferior Tribunal. The Tribunal analyzed the implications of altering the fee structure on this vested right.

5. The Tribunal further explored the impact of an increase in fees on the substantive right of appeal. Referring to cases like Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, it was established that imposing more onerous conditions or restrictions on the right of appeal is not merely procedural but affects substantive rights.

6. Considering the timing of the amendment in relation to the initiation of proceedings, the Tribunal referred to the case of State of Bombay v. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. and Arati Cotton Mills Ltd. to ascertain the retrospective applicability of fee amendments. The judgment emphasized that rights crystallize at the initiation of proceedings, safeguarding parties from subsequent restrictions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioners, affirming that the fees prevailing before Tamil Nadu Act 78 of 1986 should apply to their appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The decision underscored the protection of vested rights in the face of fee amendments and reiterated the significance of upholding substantive rights in legal proceedings.