Judgment

HEGDE J.:- This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the High Court of Madras. It raises two questions for decision viz. (1) whether the High Court was right in its opinion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was incompetent to enhance the assessment of the assessee, the respondent herein and (2) whether the High Court was justified in holding that the additional exemptions granted by the Tribunal were justified by the evidence on record.

2. There is not merit in the second contention. Therefore it will be convenient to dispose it of even before going to the fact of the case. The assessing officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes disallowed the two exemptions asked for by the assessee on the ground that there was interpolation in the relative documents covering the turnover. The Tribunal reversed that finding of those authorities and allowed the exemption asked for. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that it proceeded on the basis that there was no interpolation. This finding of the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact and hence we will not be justified in interfering with that findings and more so as the High Court has declined to interfere with that finding.

3. This takes us to the real controversy in the appeal namely whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had power to enhance the assessment of the assessee. The assessee is a dealer in Hides and Skins at Madras. We are concerned herein with its assessment for the year 1958-59. That assessment was made on March 24, 1961. By his order dated August 16, 1962, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the assessment of the assessee while disposing of the appeal filed by the assessee. Until March 31, 1959, sales tax was being levied on dealers in the State of Madras under the provisions of the Madras Sales Tax Act 1939 (to be hereinafter referred to as the "1939 Act"). The assessee s turnover for the year 1958-59 stood charged with the liability to pay tax as leviable under the 1939 Act. The 1939 Act was repealed by the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (to be hereinafter referred to as the "1959 Act"). That Act came into force on April 1, 1959. As seen earlier the assessee was assessed after that Act came into force. The assessee filed its appeal under Section 31 of that Act and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dealt with that appeal under that provision.

4. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee took up the matter in appeal to Tribunal following the decision of the Madras High Court in Commr of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division v. Sri Swami and Company (1962) 13 STC 468 (Mad) accepted the contention of the assessee. As against that decision, the State of Madras went up in revision to the High Court under Section 38 of the 1959 Act. That petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

5. The High Court has opined that under the 1939 Act, the appellate authority while exercising its appellate powers could not have enhanced the assessment of the assessee. That was an immunity or protection afforded to the assessee under the 1939 Act. Such as immunity or protection was a vested right of the assessee. The same having not been taken away either expressly or be necessary implication by the provisions of the 1959 Act, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not have enhanced the assessment. It further held that the immunity or protection of the assessee is protected by Section 66 (1) of the 1959 Act as amended in 1963., with amendment was retrospective in its operation.

5-A. The turnover of the assessee during the year 1958-59 became charged with liability to pay sales-tax under the 1939 Act as and when the assessee effected sales and the total sales-tax liability of the assessee for that year became fixed under the same Act on March 31, 1959, Hence the charging Section in the 1959 Act is not relevant for determining the liability of the assessee. Herein we have only to consider the ef