Pre-deposit sufficiency upheld where the Tribunal found the amount deposited adequate and allowed the appeal to proceed on merits.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view that the amount already deposited by the respondent constituted sufficient pre-deposit and that the first appellate authority could hear the appeal on merits. It noted that the alleged issue of condonation of delay did not arise from the impugned order, as there was no discussion on delay and no submission on that point before the Tribunal. On the pre-deposit question, the Court accepted the Tribunal's factual assessment that the deposit was about 50% of the tax amount and was adequate in the circumstances, so no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the amount of Rs. 6,25,000 deposited by the respondent as sufficient pre-deposit and in directing the first appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits.

Analysis: The Court noted that the alleged question relating to condonation of delay did not arise from the impugned order, as there was no discussion on delay and no submission on that aspect before the Tribunal. On the question of pre-deposit, the Court found that the Tribunal had accepted the respondent's case that the amount already deposited was approximately 50% of the tax amount and that such deposit was adequate. In the facts of the case, the Court held that the quantum directed by the Tribunal was reasonable and did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in treating the deposited amount as sufficient pre-deposit and in directing the appeal to be heard on merits; the challenge to that order failed.

---