Pre-deposit compliance can justify restoration on merits rather than mechanical rejection of an appeal revival request.

Where an appeal had been dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction, later full compliance with the statutory deposit requirement warranted consideration of the restoration application on merits rather than mechanical rejection. The High Court noted the hardship shown and applied the principle that, once the deposit condition is satisfied, the revival request should ordinarily receive substantive examination. The restoration application was therefore directed to be disposed of on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the restoration application for revival of the appeal, filed after compliance with the pre-deposit condition, ought to be disposed of on merits.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction. The petitioner subsequently deposited the entire amount required for hearing the appeal. The Court noted that, where the pre-deposit condition stood satisfied, the restoration request should not be rejected mechanically and the matter ought to receive consideration on merits, especially in view of the hardship shown. Reliance was placed on the principle that an appeal should be heard on merits once the statutory deposit requirement has been complied with.

Conclusion: The restoration application was directed to be disposed of on merits, in favour of the assessee.

---