Pre-deposit condition relaxed where disputed statutory forms could be verified and appeal had already been funded.

Further pre-deposit was held unnecessary where the amount directed by the first appellate authority had already been deposited and the disputed statutory forms were available for verification. The earlier incorrect statement about possession of the forms was not treated as determinative, because the real issue was whether the forms were acceptable on the facts. The Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal without insisting on any additional deposit, while leaving the question of acceptability of the forms open for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in insisting on further pre-deposit as a condition for hearing the appeal despite the amount already deposited and the disputed statutory forms being available for verification.

Analysis: A wrong statement had been made before the first appellate authority regarding possession of the forms, but that was not treated as determinative of the real question whether the forms produced were acceptable. The appellate authority was required to examine the acceptability of the forms on the facts of the case. Since the forms were stated to be in the petitioner's possession and the amount directed by the first appellate authority had already been deposited, further insistence on deposit was considered unnecessary for the hearing of the appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was directed to be heard by the Tribunal without insisting on any further deposit towards the disputed demand. The question of acceptability of the forms was left open for determination by the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the limited extent of relieving the petitioner from the additional pre-deposit condition, while preserving the Tribunal's authority to decide the appeal on merits.

---