HOOSEIN KASAM DADA (INDIA) LTD versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 987 · Decided: 23-02-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
S"CPRElVIE COURT REPORTS 
987 
HOOSEIN KASAM DADA (INDIA) LTD. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND 
OTHERS. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and S. R. DAS ,JJ.] 
Appeal-Right to appeal-Whether vested right-When 1·ight 
vests-Change of law after initiation of proceedings in lower Court 
-Law governing appeal-Law making deposit of a1nount of appeal 
a condition for admission of appeal - Whether matter of mere prn-
cedure -Ce1!trnl Provinces andBerar S•tleB Ta.v Act, 1947, s. 22 (1) 
· -Centred Provinces Sales Tax Act (Second A11wndment) Act, 1950. 
The right of appeal is a matter of substantive right and not 
merely a matter of procedure, and this right becomes vesterl in a 
party when the proceedings are first initiated in, and before a de-
cision is given by, the inferior Court and such a right cannot be 
taken away except by express enttctment or necessary intend-
ment. 
Section 22(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax 
Act, 1947, provided that no appeal against an order of assessment 
should be entertained by the prescribed authority unless it was 
satisfied that such amount of tax as the appellant might admit to 
be d11e from him, had bean paid. 
This Act was amended on the 
25th November, 1949, and s. 22(1) as amended provided that no 
appeal should be admitted by the said authority unless such ap-
peal was accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the 
tax in respect of which the appeal had been preferred. 
On the 28th 
of November, 1947, the appellant submitted a return to the Sales 
Tax Officor, \vho, fincl.ing that the turnover exceeded 2 lacs, 
sub~ 
mitted the case to the Assistant Co1n1uissioner for disposal and 
the latter made an assessment on the 8th April, 1950. The appel-
lant praiel'l'ad an appeal on the 10th ;\fay, 1950, without deposit-
ing the a1nount oI ta.x in respect o{ \Vhich he ha<l apperLled. 
The 
Board of Havetme was of opinion that s. 22(1) as amended applied 
t;o the case as the assessment was made, and the appeal was pre-
ferred, after the amendment came into force, and rejected the 
appeal. 
Held, (i) that the appellant had a vested right to appeal when 
the proceedings v.'ere initiated, i.e., in 1947, and his right to ap· 
peal was governed by the law as it existed on that date; (ii) that 
the amendment of 1950 cannot be regarded as a mere alteration 
in procedure or an alteration regulating the exercise of the right 
of appeal, but whittled down the right itself, and it Jmd no ratros-
pocth·e effect as tlrn Amendment Act of 1950 did not oxpressly or 
by necessary intendn1ent give it retrospective effect, a.µd th~ 
1963 
February 23. 
SUPREME COURT Rl~PORTS 
[1953] 
1963 
appeal could not therefore he rejected for non-payment of the tax 
-
in respect of which the appeal was preferred. • 
H oo8ein Kasarn 
Dada (India) 
Colonial Sngar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving [1905] A.O. 369, 
N,1nabin Aba v. Sheku bin Andu (I.hR. 32 Born. 337), Delhi Cloth 
~ 
( 
v. 
and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income-tam Commissioner, Delhi 
54 
The State of 
I.A. 421), Kirpa Singh v. Rasaldar Ajaipal fingh (A.LR. 1?28 
Madhya Pradesh Lah. 627), Sardar Ali v. Dalim7tddzn (I.L.R. 06 Cal. 512) applied. 
and Othors, 
Badruddin Abdnl Rahim v. Sitaram Vinayak Apte (I.L.R. 52 
Born. 753) disapproved. 
In re Vasudeva Sainiar (A.I.R. 1929 1fad. 381), Rain Sinqha 
v. Sankar Doyal (I.L.R. 50 All. 965). Radhakisnn v. Sri Dhar 
(A.LR. 1950 N"ag. 17), Gordhan Das v. Governor-General in Conncil 
(A.LR. 1950 Pnnj. 103) and Nagendm ?Vath Bose v. 
~Ionmohan 
(1930, 34 C.W.N. 1009) referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLA't'E 
,JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 182 of 1952. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated 2nd August, 1951, of the High Court of 
Judicature at Nagpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 187 
of 1950 under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 
N. 0. Chatteijee (R. 111. Hajamavi8, with him) for 
the appellant. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer for the State of Madhya 
Pradesh. 
1953. Februarv 23. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by " 
DAS J. On the 28th November, 1947, the appel-
lant Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd., (hereinafter 
referred to as the assessee) submited to the Sales Tax 
Officer, Akola, a Sales Tax return in Form IV for the 
first quarter. Notice in Form XI calling upon the 
assessee to produce evidence in support of the said 
return having been issued by the Sales Tax Officer, the 
assessee produced his accouni books. 
Not being 
satisfied by the inspection of the account books as

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.