9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts in the case of the firm Sivam Trading Company. For the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee suffered an order of assessment on June 21, 1982. The order of assessment was revised on May 26, 1986. Against the revised order of assessment the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and it was dismissed on December 22, 1987. 2.. Not being successful, a second appeal was preferred to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was filed on April 14, 1988. In the meanwhile Tamil Nadu Act 78 of 1986 was enacted on December 17, 1986 with effect from September 8, 1987. As per the amended provision the prescribed fee is 2 per cent of the disputed tax and penalty, subject to a minimum of Rs. 100 and a maximum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal to a superior Tribunal becomes a vested right in the aggrieved party, when proceedings are first initiated before the inferior Tribunal. Such a vested right cannot be taken away except by a clear intendment in the statute. An intention to interfere with or to impair or imperil such a vested right cannot be presumed unless such intention is clearly manifested by express words in the statute. What is more even with regard to the impairment with the right of appeal, the Supreme Court had something to say. In that case it was argued that the requirement as to the deposit of the amount of the assessed cost will not affect the right of appeal itself, but only introduces a new matter of procedure. Observed the Supreme Court: "There can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to enter the superior Court accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences and although it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced such right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal. (v) This vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise." 6.. There is still a question which remains unanswered for the purpose of our case. In this case, the right of appeal is not taken away. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 78 of 1986 only enhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and at least in one given by this Court, it has been held that an impairment of the right of appeal by putting a new restriction thereon or imposing a more onerous condition is not a matter of procedure only; it impairs or imperils a substantive right and an enactment which does so is not retrospective unless it says so expressly or by necessary intendment." 9.. As against the above decisions, the learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. R. Mahadevan, that the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal arose out of the judgment of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was rendered on December 22, 1987. Inasmuch as by that time the amendment had come into force it is futile to argue that the amendment cannot be given effect to in respect of dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
