2002 (8) TMI 819 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 19 and sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended by Act No. 8 of 1997.
2. Whether the amendments violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3. Whether the amendments have retrospective or prospective effect.
4. Legislative competence and fundamental rights implications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 19 and sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended by Act No. 8 of 1997:

The amendments to sections 19 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, were challenged. The first proviso to section 19(1) and sub-section (2) of section 21 were amended to restrict the discretionary power of appellate authorities to condone delays in filing appeals. Prior to the amendment, appellate authorities had unlimited discretion to condone delays, but the amendments limited this discretion to 30 days for the first appellate authority and 60 days for the Appellate Tribunal.

2. Whether the amendments violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:

Petitioners argued that the amendments were discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by restricting the discretionary powers of appellate authorities. They contended that the amendments created an unreasonable classification and curtailed their right to appeal, which is a substantive right.

The court held that the amendments did not violate Article 14 as there was no unreasonable classification. The amendments only restricted the discretionary power to condone delays, which is procedural in nature, and did not take away the substantive right to appeal. The court also rejected the contention that the amendments violated Article 19(1)(g) as they did not affect the fundamental right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

3. Whether the amendments have retrospective or prospective effect:

The petitioners argued that the amendments should be considered prospective and not retrospective. They contended that the amendments could not affect their vested right to appeal, which existed before the amendments came into effect.

The court referred to various decisions, including Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Hardeodas Jagannath v. State of Assam, to conclude that the right to appeal is a substantive right, but the provisions relating to condonation of delay are procedural. The court held that the amendments were prospective in nature and did not have retrospective effect. The amendments only restricted the discretionary power to condone delays and did not affect the substantive right to appeal.

4. Legislative competence and fundamental rights implications:

The court examined whether the amendments were within the legislative competence and whether they violated fundamental rights. The court referred to the decision in McDowell's case, which stated that an Act made by the Legislature could be struck down only on two grounds: lack of legislative competence and violation of fundamental rights.

The court held that the petitioners did not provide any material to show that the Legislature lacked competence or that the amendments affected their fundamental rights. Therefore, the court rejected the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the amendments to sections 19 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, were valid and did not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The amendments were prospective in nature and did not affect the substantive right to appeal. The court also held that the petitioners failed to show any lack of legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights.