Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the court should interfere with the order directing pre-deposit of part of the disputed tax demand as a condition for entertaining the appeal.
Analysis: The right of appeal under the sales tax enactment is statutory and can be regulated by conditions, including deposit of the disputed amount. The requirement of deposit operates as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal, though the authority may relax it in appropriate cases on relevant considerations such as prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and public interest. The material placed did not establish that the authority exercised its discretion arbitrarily or outside the permissible legal parameters. The plea of financial hardship was neither specifically pleaded earlier nor supported by material sufficient to justify complete waiver or further reduction of the amount directed to be deposited.
Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-deposit order failed, and no modification of the amount directed to be paid was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory right of appeal subject to pre-deposit may be regulated by lawful conditions, and interference is unwarranted unless the discretion to insist upon deposit is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or unsupported by relevant considerations.