Pre-deposit condition for tax appeals can be satisfied before first admission hearing, but not after rejection.

The second proviso to the appeal provisions under the APGST Act, 1957 and the AP VAT Act, 2005 was construed as an independent condition for an appeal to be entertained on merits, distinct from the limitation and condonation regime in the opening proviso. In the absence of express words requiring payment at the filing stage, proof of the stipulated tax payment may be produced before the appeal is first taken up for admission or condonation of delay. The expression "admitted" was treated as equivalent to "entertained", and the contrary filing-stage view was said to be impliedly overruled. A payment made only after rejection does not cure the defect.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second proviso to the appeal provisions under the APGST Act, 1957 and the AP VAT Act, 2005 requires payment of the stipulated tax amount at the time of filing the appeal, or whether production of proof of payment before the appeal is first taken up for admission or condonation of delay is sufficient, and whether a deposit made after rejection of the appeal can cure the defect.

Analysis: The opening and second provisos were read together and treated as serving different purposes. The first proviso governs limitation for filing and condonation of delay, while the second proviso imposes an independent condition for the appeal to be considered on merits. In the absence of express words requiring payment at the stage of filing, institution, or presentation, the obligation was held to be capable of being fulfilled before the appeal is first taken up for consideration. The expression "admitted" in the second proviso was construed as akin to "entertained", and not as requiring immediate pre-deposit on filing. The earlier view that treated the requirement as an inflexible filing-stage condition was held to stand impliedly overruled. A deposit made only after rejection, however, was held to be of no avail. Claims seeking adjustment of tax credit were not finally decided on merits in the remanded matters and were left for reconsideration by the High Court.

Conclusion: The stipulated payment is not a filing-stage precondition, but must be shown before the appeal is first considered for admission or condonation of delay; a post-rejection deposit does not cure the defect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute does not expressly require pre-deposit at the time of filing, the condition for admitting or entertaining the appeal is satisfied if proof of payment is produced before the first hearing on admission or condonation, but not after rejection.

---