Pre-deposit cannot be demanded for an appeal against an endorsement when no quantified tax demand is involved.

Pre-deposit under the appellate scheme applies where the appeal is against an assessment order involving a quantified tax demand; it is not justified where the appeal challenges only an endorsement returning forms and documents and no tax has been quantified under that endorsement. On that basis, insisting on payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax as a condition for entertaining such an appeal was untenable. The discussion also notes that an earlier Division Bench ruling on the same issue covered the controversy and had been accepted by both sides.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority could insist on payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax as a condition for entertaining an appeal preferred against an endorsement returning forms and documents, rather than against an assessment order.

Analysis: The challenge was to a check memo insisting on pre-deposit before the appeal could be entertained. The Court applied the settled position that pre-deposit is attracted when an appeal is filed against an assessment order, because only then is a quantified tax demand in issue. Where the appeal is directed against an endorsement and no tax has been quantified under that endorsement, insistence on 12.5% of the disputed tax as a precondition is not justified. The Court also noted that the earlier Division Bench decision on the same point covered the controversy and was accepted by both sides.

Conclusion: The insistence on pre-deposit was held to be untenable, and the appeal had to be entertained without requiring payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax.

---