Pre-deposit condition on remand set aside where delay was attributable to the department and treatment was discriminatory.

A remand for de novo adjudication cannot be made subject to a pre-deposit where the delay in adjudication was attributable to the department's keeping the matter in the call book, not to any default by the assessee. The monetary condition was based on an erroneous finding that the assessee had delayed the proceedings and was internally inconsistent because pre-deposit had already been waived for admission of the appeal. The condition was also discriminatory in light of a similarly placed assessee whose remand was ordered without such a requirement. The deposit condition was therefore set aside, and fresh adjudication was directed after supplying relied upon documents and granting a personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the assessee to deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- as a condition for remand and fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The record showed that the adjudication had remained in abeyance for a substantial period because the department had kept the matter in the call book, and not because of any default by the assessee. The direction to make a deposit was founded on the Tribunal's erroneous view that the assessee had delayed the proceedings. The Tribunal had already waived pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal, and the subsequent insistence on a monetary condition while remanding the matter was internally inconsistent. The assessee was also similarly situated to another assessee in whose case remand had been ordered without such a condition, making the impugned direction discriminatory.

Conclusion: The condition requiring deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- before de novo adjudication was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was to be decided afresh by the adjudicating authority after supplying relied upon documents and granting personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand for de novo adjudication cannot be conditioned on pre-deposit when the basis for such condition rests on an erroneous factual finding and results in discriminatory treatment, especially where the appeal has already been entertained without insisting on pre-deposit.

---