Rectification order reducing tax is not appealable, and non-payment of admitted tax bars the appeal under the pre-deposit rule.

A rectification order that merely reduces an assessment or penalty under the Sales Tax Act was treated as outside the class of appealable orders, because section 43(3) was read as permitting appeal only where rectification enhances the assessment or penalty. The earlier assessment had already become final, and the rectification order did not revive a lost right of appeal against that assessment. Separately, the appeal was barred under section 34 because the admitted tax had not been fully deposited when the appeal was filed, and the statutory pre-deposit requirement had to be satisfied before the appeal could be entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lay against a rectification order reducing the assessment or penalty under section 43(3) of the Sales Tax Act; (ii) whether the failure to deposit the admitted tax attracted the bar under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lay against a rectification order reducing the assessment or penalty under section 43(3) of the Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: Section 43(3) was read as limiting the appellate remedy to rectification orders that enhance an assessment or penalty. A rectification which merely reduces the assessment or penalty was treated as outside the category of appealable orders. The earlier assessment had already become final, and the passing of a rectification order did not revive a lost right of appeal against that assessment.

Conclusion: No appeal lay against the rectification order reducing the assessment or penalty, and the assessee could not revive the original challenge.

Issue (ii): Whether the failure to deposit the admitted tax attracted the bar under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: Under the second proviso to section 34, an appeal could not be entertained unless accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of the tax or other amounts admitted to be due. The admitted tax had not been fully deposited when the appeal was filed, so the appellate authority was justified in rejecting it.

Conclusion: The appeal was barred for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the rectification order did not create a fresh right of appeal and the original appeal was incompetent for want of payment of the admitted tax.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification order that merely reduces an assessment or penalty is not an appealable order, and the statutory pre-deposit requirement must be satisfied before an appeal can be entertained.

---