Mandatory tax-payment proof for appeal remains enforceable; sick industrial unit protection does not override the filing .

Proof of payment of tax is a mandatory condition precedent for entertaining an appeal against an assessment order under section 9(1B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, and non-compliance renders the appeal not maintainable. Protection based on BIFR proceedings and section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not dispense with that statutory appellate precondition, because the section bars coercive recovery measures but does not excuse filing requirements. Deferment of dues under section 38 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act requires a valid State Government order, and absent such an order, the deposit requirement remains enforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether furnishing satisfactory proof of payment of tax under section 9(1B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is a mandatory condition for entertaining an appeal against an assessment order; (ii) Whether the assessee could claim protection from deposit of tax dues on the basis of BIFR proceedings and section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether furnishing satisfactory proof of payment of tax under section 9(1B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is a mandatory condition for entertaining an appeal against an assessment order.

Analysis: Section 9(1B) expressly provides that no appeal against an assessment order shall be entertained unless satisfactory proof of payment of the tax or fee due is furnished. The requirement operates as a condition precedent to the maintainability of the appeal, and non-compliance justifies rejection of the appeal memo.

Conclusion: The requirement of deposit and proof thereof is mandatory, and the appeals were not maintainable without compliance.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could claim protection from deposit of tax dues on the basis of BIFR proceedings and section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: Section 38 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 contemplates deferment of dues only through an order of the State Government, and no such order existed. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars coercive recovery measures, execution, distress, winding up proceedings, and suits for recovery, but it does not exempt an assessee from complying with a statutory precondition for filing an appeal. No recovery proceedings were being taken; only appellate maintainability was in issue.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to protection under section 22, and BIFR proceedings did not excuse non-deposit of tax dues.

Final Conclusion: The orders rejecting the appeals for non-compliance with the deposit requirement were upheld, and the revisions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory requirement to furnish proof of tax payment for entertaining an appeal is mandatory, and it is not displaced by sick industrial unit status or by the protective bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 absent a valid deferment order by the competent Government.

---