9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (3) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-1956 01-04-1961 20-10-1961 returned 3. 27-10-1954 to 14-11 1955 24-04-1958 10-01-959 ................ Transmitted to the Board of Revenue 4. 15-11-1955 to 2-11-1956 31-08-1960 27-12-1960 4-10-1961 returned 3. Prior to the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) on 1st April, 1959, the assessees had, under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, a right to file two successive appeals against any original order of assessment of sales tax. Second appeals, which could be filed on a court-fee stamp of Rs. 5 lay to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Against an order passed in second appeal, a revision lay to the Board of Revenue. Only after an order was passed in revision could an assessee require the Board to refer to the High Court questions of law arising out of that order. Under the. scheme of the Act, which is in force, a second appeal, which can be filed on a court-fee stamp of Rs. 25, lies to the Board. The further remedy of revision against an order passed in second appeal is not provided and, if the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e precise question which we have to consider is whether the right to the remedy available to the petitioners under the repealed Act at the time when the "lis" arose in each case was taken away by the provisions of the Act. 5.. The general rule is that statutes are presumably prospective in operation unless the contrary is very plainly and unequivocally expressed or necessarily implied. The is based on the principle that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation otherwise than as regards matters of procedure, unless an intention so to do has been expressed clearly or by necessary implication. This rule regarding vested rights is not confined to substantive rights but extends equally to remedial rights, their nature and content. An appeal is not a mere matter of procedure. To disturb an existing right of appeal is not a mere alteration in procedure and an intention to interfere with or to impair or imperil, an existing right of appeal cannot be presumed unless such intention be clearly manifested by express words or necessary intendment: Janardan Reddy v. The State[1950] S.C.R. 940., Ganpat Rai Hiralal v. Aggarwal Cham ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, as in force on the date immediately before the commencement of this Act as if the said Act and the rules had not been repealed; and the right of reference to High Court, if any, arising out of any such proceedings shall not be affected by the said repeal and such reference shall be made and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and rules." 7.. In view of the principle referred to earlier, no express provision is necessary for saving a vested right of appeal. The proviso to subsection (1) which saves all rights acquired, including a right of appeal, emphasises that there was no intention of abrogating or impairing such a right. Sub-section (3), which provides that any second appeal pending at the commencement of the Act shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the repealed Act, has been enacted ex abundanti cautela. Even without that enactment, the position would not be different. We were particularly referred to sub-section (2). which merely provides that any first appeal pending on the date of commencement of the Act shall he transferred and disposed of by the officer "who would have had jurisdiction to entertain such appeal under this Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an order passed in second appeal on a application made to it for the purpose. Before rejecting the application, the Board was bound to "consider it" and to "record reasons for such rejection". Also, under section 23 of the repealed Act, only questions of law arising out of the order passed in revision could be referred to the High Court. In this situation, it cannot be said that the Board had a discretion in the matter and it could pass any order it thought fit. Apart from this, as shown, the two appeals, revision and reference, taken together, constituted one integrated remedy leading ultimately to the last stage, namely, a reference to the High Court. So, in a like case arising under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act (30 of 1950), which contained similar provisions, the question was whether the right given to a dealer of moving the Commissioner to exercise his revisional power in respect of an order made against him was a vested right accruing to him on the date of initiation of the assessment proceedings. Two of the three Judges, who heard the case, answered that question in the affirmative. One of us (Dixit, J., as he then was), who heard the case on a difference between Nevask ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
