Pre-deposit requirement for tax appeals upheld as valid, while constitutional writ review remained available in exceptional cases.

Provisos to section 20(1) and section 21(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 were upheld as valid because they lawfully made payment of the assessed tax or penalty, with limited discretion to allow a deposit of not less than fifty per cent, a condition precedent to entertaining an appeal or revision. The Court treated the pre-deposit requirement as consistent with earlier authority on comparable statutory conditions and held that ordinary compliance was mandatory. At the same time, constitutional writ jurisdiction remained available in exceptional cases of gross injustice or palpable illegality, so the statutory remedy scheme did not exclude judicial review. The challenge to the provisos therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisos to section 20(1) and section 21(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, requiring payment of the assessed tax or penalty, with limited discretion to permit deposit of not less than fifty per cent, were valid.

Analysis: The provisions imposed a condition precedent for entertainment of appeal or revision, but they were upheld as being in line with earlier decisions sustaining comparable pre-deposit requirements. The availability of writ jurisdiction remained open in exceptional cases of gross injustice or palpable illegality, so the statutory remedy scheme did not oust constitutional judicial review. Ordinary compliance with the deposit requirement was therefore mandatory.

Conclusion: The impugned provisos were valid and enforceable, and the challenge to them failed.

---