The provisions of section 9 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which incorporates the provisions of the State law relating to appeals, including substantive provisions, are wide enough to incorporate the provisions of section 21 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which requires payment of tax as a condition for entertaining an appeal. The requirement of payment of tax as a condition for entertaining an appeal is not discriminatory, as it is based on the classification of goods made by the different States in their respective Sales Tax Acts.

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is a dealer in Rose Oil, was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that the transactions amounted to inter-State sales, while he contended that they were local sales effected in the Andhra Pradesh and Were subject to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General sales Tax Act which he had already paid. Against this order, he filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, which was rejected. As against the rejection of the appeal, he preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad. The Appellate Tribunal required proof of payment of tax from the petitioner before the appeal could be registered, but the petitioner contended that this was an appeal under the Central Sales Tax Act which did not make any provision requiring proof of payment of tax as a condition for entertaining the appeal unlike the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh general Sales Tax Act.

( 2 ) THE restriction imposed as a condition for entertaining the appeal has been challenged on two grounds, firstly, that section 9 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act does not incorporate by reference, all the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales tax Act, and in particular, section 21 (6) of that Act, but only incorporated the procedural provisions relating to filing of the appeals and consequently, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to insist on payment of tax as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal; and secondly, that even if it is held that the restriction is valid and that the Tribunal can demand payment of tax before entertaining the appeal, that restriction is discriminatory, in that other States have no provision similar to this in their respective State Acts. Sri Upendralal Waghray has sought to apply by analogy the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Collector of customs and Excise, Cochin v. A. S. Bava, C. AS. NOS. 2007 and 2008 of 1966, decided on 27th July, 1967. while dealing with the provisions of the central Excise and Salt Act and of the Sea Customs Act of 1878.

( 3 ) WE may at the outset point out that the provisions which their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering were not in pari materia with the provisions which we are called upon to consider. Section 12 of the Central Excise and Salt act authorises the Central Government to apply provisions of the Sea Customs act (now replaced by the Customs Act 1962 ). It provides that: "procedure relating to offences and appeals shall, with such modifications and alterations as it may consider necessary or desirable to adapt them to the circumstances, be applicable in regard to like matters in respect of the duties imposed by section 3. "

( 4 ) BY virtue of this provision, a notification was made in 1963 declaring that the provisions of section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 relating to matters specified in the notification be applicable in regard to like matters in respect of the duties imposed by section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act. Sub-section (1) of section 129 of the customs Act provides as follows : "where the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of customs authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, any person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the proper officer the duty demanded or the penalty levied. "

( 5 ) THE proviso and sub-section (2) of that section have been omitted as they are not relevant for the purposes of this case. Their Lordships held that the provision relating to the deposit of tax as a condition for entertaining the appeal, contained in section 129 (i) was not a procedural provision but a substartive provision, and consequently, the notification was beyond the scope rnd powers conferred by section 12 on the Central Government. The observations of S. R. Das, J. , as he then was in hoosein Kasam Dada, (India

Click Here to Read the rest of this document