Pre-deposit exemption applications must be decided by reasoned order before an appeal is dismissed for non-payment.

The first appellate authority must decide an application for exemption from pre-deposit under the proviso to section 30(5) before dismissing an appeal for want of deposit. Where the statute allows waiver or part-payment on satisfaction that the dealer cannot pay, the authority is required to consider the request and record reasons in writing. A mechanical dismissal of the appeal without separate adjudication on the pending exemption application does not satisfy that statutory duty. The dismissal orders were set aside and the matters were remitted for fresh consideration of the exemption applications and passing of speaking orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first appellate authority was required to decide the dealer's application for exemption from pre-deposit under the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 30 before dismissing the appeal for want of pre-deposit.

Analysis: The statutory proviso empowered the appellate authority to entertain an appeal without full pre-deposit where it was satisfied that the dealer was unable to pay, for reasons to be recorded in writing. The appeal was dismissed mechanically for non-deposit without any separate adjudication on the pending exemption application. Such a course did not amount to compliance with the statutory requirement of considering the request for exemption and recording a reasoned order.

Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded on this issue. The orders dismissing the appeals were set aside and the matters were remitted to the first appellate authority to decide the exemption applications and pass speaking orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory provision permits waiver or part-payment of pre-deposit on satisfaction of inability to pay, the appellate authority must first adjudicate that request by a reasoned order before rejecting the appeal for non-compliance with the deposit requirement.

---