Pre-deposit compliance controls appellate jurisdiction; merits cannot be decided until the threshold dismissal is addressed.

Where a first appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with a statutory pre-deposit condition, the Tribunal's role is confined to examining the validity of that condition and the dismissal for non-compliance. It cannot bypass that threshold issue and decide the assessment on merits as though the appeal had been properly entertained. The Gujarat HC held that the Tribunal erred in going into the merits before addressing the pre-deposit issue, and the order was set aside with the matter restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could decide the second appeal on merits when the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the pre-deposit condition.

Analysis: The appeal before the Tribunal arose from an order that had not entered into the merits because the statutory pre-deposit requirement had not been satisfied. In such a situation, the Tribunal's task was confined to examining the correctness of the pre-deposit condition and the dismissal for non-compliance. The Tribunal could not bypass that stage and adjudicate the assessment merits as if the first appeal had been properly entertained. Where necessary, the proper course was to set aside the order and restore the matter for consideration in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal erred in deciding the appeal on merits instead of first dealing with the pre-deposit issue. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue, and the Tribunal's order was set aside with the matter restored for fresh consideration.

---