Pre-deposit for stay cannot defeat an admitted appeal where reduced deposit and security adequately protect revenue.

Where an appeal has already been admitted, a deposit directed only as a condition for stay of recovery cannot justify dismissal of the appeal for non-payment alone. The court treated the dismissal as unsustainable because the taxpayer offered a reduced cash deposit together with binding security over immovable property and an undertaking not to alienate it. Adequate alternative security was considered sufficient to protect the revenue, so the statutory appeal was restored subject to compliance with the modified deposit and security conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority and the Tribunal were justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition, and whether the appeal should be restored on furnishing a reduced pre-deposit and security.

Analysis: The Tribunal had already admitted the second appeal and had directed deposit of a specified amount only for stay of recovery proceedings. Dismissal of the appeal for non-payment of that amount was, therefore, not warranted. Considering the petitioner's offer to make a smaller cash deposit and to secure the revenue by creating a binding charge over valuable immovable property coupled with an undertaking not to alienate it, the interests of justice could be protected without refusing restoration of the appeal.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal for want of pre-deposit was held to be unsustainable. The appeal was restored before the appellate authority, subject to the petitioner making the directed reduced deposit and furnishing the offered security.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief by setting aside the orders of the appellate authority and the Tribunal and by securing restoration of the statutory appeal on modified financial and security conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal has been admitted and the deposit required is only for stay of recovery, the appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of that amount if adequate alternative security and a lesser pre-deposit are furnished to safeguard the revenue.

---