- (1.) The High Court had by the impugned judgment struck down the provisos to Section 20 (1) and Section 21 (2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act which had provided that no appealrevision against an order would be entertained by the prescribed authority/commissioner unless the amount of tax assessed or the penalty levied is paid, discretion being given to the authority for permitting payment of not less than 50 per cent of the tax assessed or the penalty levied.
(2.) The aforesaid Sections 20 (1) and 21 (2) along with the relevant provisos read as follows: "20.Appeal. (1) Any dealer objecting an order of assessment or penalty passed under this Act, may, within thirty days from the date of the service of such order, appeal to the prescribed authority against such assessment or penalty: provided that no appeal shall be entertained by the said authority unless he is satisfied that the amount of lax assessed or the penalty levied has been paid: provided further that the authority before whom an appeal has been filed may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the appellant to pay any lesser amount which shall not be less than fifty per cent of the tax assessed or fifty per cent of the penalty levied and on payment of the amount so directed, entertain the appeal. 21. (2) In the case of any order other than an order to which sub-section (1) applies, passed by any person appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 4 to assist him, the Commissioner may, either on his own motion or on a petition, by a dealer for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any such order has been passed and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made, and subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such orders thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the dealer, as he thinks fit: provided that no petition for revision by a dealer shall be admitted by the Commissioner unless at least fifty per cent of the amount of tax assessed, or as the case may be, fifty per cent of the amount of penalty levied has been paid by the dealer where the order against which revision is filed relates to assessment of tax or imposition of penalty. "
(3.) As we see it, the point in issue is no longer res integra. This Court in gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of the City of ahmedabad dealing with an analogous provision, where discretion to waive pre-deposit was limited only to the extent of 25 per cent of the tax, was upheld by this Court. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi.;