Pre-deposit compliance and appeal restoration: dismissal for non-compliance stood, but the matter was revived on reduced deposit terms.

Failure to comply with a pre-deposit direction under the Finance Act barred the appeal, and the pendency of a writ petition against that interim order did not operate as a stay. The dismissal for non-compliance was therefore sustained. Because the dispute had not yet been examined on merits, the matter was nevertheless restored on terms of a reduced pre-deposit, to be made within the stipulated time, after which the Commissioner (Appeals) would hear the appeal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the predeposit direction was justified and whether the matter should be remanded for adjudication on merits after partial compliance.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed by the lower appellate authority for failure to comply with the predeposit requirement under Section 35F read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The pendency of a writ petition against the interim predeposit order did not amount to a stay of that order, and therefore the dismissal for non-compliance could not be faulted. At the same time, since the dispute had not been examined on merits, the appropriate course was to secure compliance by directing a reduced predeposit and to restore the appeal for hearing on merits.

Conclusion: The dismissal for non-compliance was upheld, but the appellant was directed to make a predeposit of Rs. 1,25,000 within the stipulated time, upon which the appeal would be heard on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter was remanded accordingly.

---