Pre-deposit in tax appeals is discretionary, and orders striking off or restoring appeals can remain valid within jurisdiction.

Appellate power under the taxing statute includes judicial discretion to grant time for compliance with a pre-deposit condition before entertaining an appeal, but there is no mandatory duty to extend time in every case. If the required deposit is not made, the appeal is not properly presented for entertainment, and an order striking off the memorandum for non-compliance remains within jurisdiction. The revisional authority may also interfere and restore the appeal where the statute and rules confer wide revisional powers. The stated principles uphold the validity of the appellate and revisional orders within the scheme of the tax law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellate authority was bound to grant time for deposit of the statutory tax amount before hearing the appeal; (ii) whether the order striking off the appeal for non-compliance with the deposit requirement was valid in law; (iii) whether the order restoring the appeal in revision was in accordance with law.

Issue (i): whether the appellate authority was bound to grant time for deposit of the statutory tax amount before hearing the appeal.

Analysis: The appeal provisions required payment of the prescribed percentage of tax as a condition to entertainment of the appeal, while the limitation provision empowered the appellate authority to admit an appeal after the prescribed period on sufficient cause. The power to regulate admission of the appeal included the ability to grant time for compliance with the deposit condition. The discretion was judicial and depended on the facts of each case. There was no mandatory duty to grant time in every case.

Conclusion: The appellate authority was not legally bound to grant time; the matter was within its discretion, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the order striking off the appeal for non-compliance with the deposit requirement was valid in law.

Analysis: An appeal not accompanied by the required deposit was not properly presented for entertainment. Refusal to allow further time and striking off the memorandum of appeal was an order made within the appellate authority's jurisdiction under the appeal and admission provisions. The order remained subject to further statutory challenge, but it was not invalid merely because the authority declined to extend time.

Conclusion: The order striking off the appeal was valid in law, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): whether the order restoring the appeal in revision was in accordance with law.

Analysis: The revisional power conferred by the statute and the rules was wide. It enabled the superior authority to interfere with the subordinate authority's order where it considered such interference necessary. The restoration of the appeal was therefore made within jurisdiction and could not be said to be invalid for want of power.

Conclusion: The revisional order restoring the appeal was in accordance with law, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by upholding the validity of the appellate and revisional orders and by recognising the appellate authority's discretion on the deposit condition.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory power to entertain an appeal includes a judicial discretion to allow time for compliance with the pre-deposit condition, and orders made in exercise of that discretion are valid and revisable within the scheme of the taxing statute.

---