Pre-deposit compliance after rejection justified restoration of the tax appeal for decision on merits.

Where a tax appeal was rejected only for non-compliance with a pre-deposit requirement, later compliance normally justified restoration of the appeal for decision on merits. The stated principle was that, if the delay in meeting the pre-deposit condition is otherwise explainable, the appellate forum should condone the default and hear the matter substantively rather than sustain rejection on the earlier technical lapse. On that basis, the refusal to restore the appeal was held unsustainable, and the appeal was restored for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority ought to have restored the tax appeal for decision on merits after the assessee subsequently complied with the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The appeal had been rejected only for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. The record showed that the demanded pre-deposit was later made. In that situation, the proper course was to condone the delay in compliance and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits rather than let the rejection stand.

Conclusion: The refusal to restore the appeal was unsustainable, and the matter had to be sent back for adjudication on merits in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the first appeal was restored before the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory pre-deposit condition is complied with after rejection of the appeal, and the delay is otherwise explainable, the appellate forum should ordinarily restore the appeal and decide it on merits instead of sustaining the rejection solely on the earlier default.

---