ORDER This petition must be allowed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others ([1953] S.C.R. 987; 4 S.T.C. 115). 2. The petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, in the matter arising out of assessment of sales tax on him. The amount of sales tax assessed on him was Rs. 29,005-9-0. When he preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, he made an application for stay of the recovery of this amount. The Deputy Commissioner ordered that the appeal would be admitted on the petitioner's depositing Rs. 5,000 and that the recovery of the balance would be stayed. In his second appeal before the Commissioner he made a prayer that the recovery of the amount of Rs. 24,005-9-0 be stayed pending the decision of the appeal. The Commissioner, however, intimated to the petitioner that no stay could be granted and the appeal would not be admitted until the balance was paid. 3. There is no doubt that under section 22(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, as it stood on the date of the Commissioner's order, an order of this kind could properly be made by the Commissioner. It is however contended that the returns in this case having been filed in May, 1948, the provision of section 22(1), as it now stands, would not apply and that the matter would be governed by the corresponding provision, as it stood at the time of the filing of the returns. This contention of the petitioner is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court already adverted to and must be upheld. 4. It is however contended, though rather faintly, by the learned Deputy Advocate-General that the petitioner having availed himself of the right of a second appeal before the Commissioner which is provided by the rules made subsequent to the filing of the returns and which superseded the rules then in force he was not entitled to contend that the matter is still governed by the provisions of the Act in force when the returns were filed. It is sufficient to say that a provision for an appeal is made not in the Act but in the rules; whereas a provision for the payment of the tax as a condition precedent to the admission of the appeal is to be found in the Act itself. Section 22(1) of the Act, as it stood when the returns were filed was in the following terms :- "Any dealer aggrieved by an order under this Act may, in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority against the order : Provided that no appeal against an order of assessment, with or without penalty, shall be entertained by the said authority unless it is satisfied that such amount of tax or penalty or both as the appellant may admit to be due from him, has been paid." The corresponding relevant part of the section, as it now stands, is as follows :- "Any dealer aggrieved by an order under this Act may, in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority against the order : Provided that no appeal against an order of assessment, with or without penalty, shall be admitted by the said authority unless such appeal is accompained by a satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax, with penalty, if any, in respect of which the appeal has been preferred." It will thus be clear that though the amended section makes a clear distiniction between a first and a second appeal, the original provision is wide enough to embrace both. There will be no difficulty in reading that provision along with the rules under which a second appeal before the Commissioner has been preferred. If the present rules could not be divorced from the provisions of section 22(1), as they stand today, the position may have been different. As, however, they can be read along with the provisions of the old section, there can be no obstacle in the way of the petitioner in preferring a second appeal before the Commissioner and contending that he is not bound to deposit the tax assessed on him except the amount which he admits to be due. 5. The petition is accordingly allowed. There will however be no order as to costs. The amount of security deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Petition allowed.