Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal and the restoration application for want of prosecution after the assessee had deposited the pre-deposit amount, instead of deciding the matter on merits.
Analysis: The appeal arose from dismissal of the assessee's Tribunal appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction and the subsequent dismissal of the restoration applications for non-appearance. The Court relied on the settled principle that once the pre-deposit is made good, the appeal should ordinarily be heard and decided on merits, and that technical or procedural default should not defeat substantive adjudication where no prejudice is caused to the other side. In the present case, the pre-deposit had been deposited and there was no justification for refusing restoration merely because of non-appearance on a particular date.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was not right in dismissing the appeal and the restoration applications for want of prosecution or for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction; the appeal was required to be restored and heard on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the required pre-deposit has been made, the appellate forum should make every endeavour to decide the appeal on merits and should not refuse restoration or dismiss the appeal merely on technical grounds of non-prosecution.