Summary
Assessees challenged a twenty-five per cent pre-deposit condition for Punjab VAT appeals, while the State contested the High Court’s recognition of an implied waiver power. The Court upheld the statutory condition but rejected the supposed appellate power to waive it. Incidental powers cannot override an express legislative restriction. Constitutional recourse remained available in genuine hardship cases.
Issues
- Whether the twenty-five per cent pre-deposit requirement was constitutionally valid.
- Whether the appellate authority possessed an implied power to waive the statutory condition.
Provisions considered
- Section 62(5), Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005Prior payment of twenty-five per cent of the additional demand, penalty and interest was a valid mandatory condition for entertaining an appeal, without an implied appellate waiver power. (¶¶ 3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26)
Held
- Appeal is a statutory right that may be regulated by conditions, including pre-deposit. On the governing authorities, the twenty-five per cent requirement was neither impermissibly onerous nor violative of equality; absence of an express waiver provision did not itself invalidate it. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- An express grant of power carries necessary incidental powers only within statutory limits. An implied power to waive this deposit would negate the clear prohibition on entertaining an appeal without payment. The principle in Mohammed Kunhi could not sustain such a power. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- In genuine hardship cases, constitutional recourse of the kind recognised in the cited authorities remained open. That possibility did not confer equivalent dispensing authority on the statutory appellate forum. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18, 25)
Result
The assessees’ appeals were dismissed and the State’s appeals allowed, without costs. The validity of section 62(5) was upheld, but the High Court’s conclusion that the appellate authority could partially or completely waive the deposit was set aside.