SIVAM TRADING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION on being called today upon hearing both sides the Tribunal ordered as follows :

(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 of Rs. 2,000. Prior to the amendment the minimum fee was Rs. 25 and the maximum fee was Rs. 100. The petitioner had filed the appeal with a fee of Rs. 100 as per the unamended provision. The issue being raised before the Appellate Tribunal as to whether the unamended provisions will apply to the case of the petitioner and similar other appellants, the Appellate Tribunal passed the said order dated August 18, 1989. No doubt, the Appellate Tribunal has considered decisions relied on by the petitioners before coming to the conclusion that only the amended provisions will apply to the case of the petitioner.

(3.) THE issue before us is a familiar one and the question is whether the amendment to the fees payable on an appeal memorandum is a matter relating to procedure or it is a matter relating to the substantive rights of the petitioner. In [1953] 4 STC 114 (SC) ; : AIR 1953 SC 221 [Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh] it was held that the right of appeal is not merely the matter of procedure. It is a matter of substantive right of appeal 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 :