Demand notice requirement under appeal rules cannot be implied where the rule does not expressly require it.

Rule 24(3) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961 requires an appeal to be accompanied by an attested copy of the assessment or penalty order, or by a notice of demand of interest where applicable. It does not impose a general condition precedent that a copy of the demand notice must be filed in every case. Reading such a requirement into the rule adds words not found in its language. The dismissal of the appeal solely for non-filing of the demand notice was therefore not justified, and the appeal had to be examined on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under rule 24(3) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961, an appeal was required to be accompanied by a copy of the demand notice, and whether dismissal of the appeal for non-filing of such notice was sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 24(3) required the memorandum of appeal to be accompanied by an attested copy of the order of assessment or imposing penalty or a notice of demand of interest, if any. The provision did not require a copy of the demand notice to be filed as a condition precedent in every case. The appellate authority therefore read into the rule a requirement that was not expressed in its language.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal for non-filing of the demand notice was not justified, and the matter had to be considered on merits.

---