De minimis tax shortfall cannot defeat appeal where refundable amount was available for adjustment.

An appeal was not treated as incompetent merely because the admitted tax was short by a trivial amount when a refundable sum was already available with the department and had been sought to be adjusted. The refund mechanism required such refundable amount to be applied against outstanding tax liability, so the minor deficiency should have been set off automatically. Applying the de minimis principle, the court held that an insignificant omission of three paise could not defeat the right of appeal. The appellate authority was therefore justified in entertaining the appeal, and the revising authority was not justified in restoring the assessment order on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's appeal was incompetent for non-deposit of the admitted tax in full when a refundable amount was available with the department, and whether the revising authority was justified in restoring the assessment order on that ground.

Analysis: The appeal provision required proof of payment of the admitted tax, but the refund provision required any refundable amount to be applied first against outstanding tax liability. On the facts, the assessee had an admitted refundable amount from the sales tax department and had sought its adjustment at the time of filing the return. Since the shortfall in deposit was only three paise, the statutory refund mechanism meant that an automatic adjustment should have been made, and the deficiency was too trifling to invalidate the appeal. The principle that the law does not concern itself with trifles was applied to hold that such an insignificant omission should not defeat the assessee's right of appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was rightly entertained by the appellate authority, and the revising authority was not justified in setting aside the appellate order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refundable sum is available to be adjusted against admitted tax liability under the refund provision, a trivial shortfall in deposit does not render the appeal incompetent, and a de minimis infraction may be ignored.

---