Statutory pre-deposit and alternative remedy rules defeat challenge where no deposit was made and appeal was not filed in time.

A statutory pre-deposit condition for admission of an appeal must be strictly complied with; it cannot be satisfied by adjusting earlier pre-deposit credit or other available credit unless the statute expressly allows it. On that basis, the appellate authority was justified in refusing to admit the appeal where no qualifying deposit was made. A writ challenge to a penalty order was also not maintainable because the statutory appeal remedy was available but was not filed within time, and the matter did not fall within any exception permitting writ jurisdiction despite an alternative remedy. Both challenges therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal against the reassessment order could be admitted without depositing 12.5% of the disputed tax and by seeking adjustment of earlier pre-deposit or available credit; (ii) Whether the writ petition challenging the penalty order was maintainable when the statutory appeal remedy was not availed within time.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal against the reassessment order could be admitted without depositing 12.5% of the disputed tax and by seeking adjustment of earlier pre-deposit or available credit?

Analysis: The prescribed pre-deposit under Section 31(1) is mandatory for admission of the appeal. The earlier 50% pre-deposit had already been given credit in the reassessment, reducing the liability, and the Act did not permit a further adjustment of a separate net credit balance against the statutory pre-deposit requirement. Since no amount was deposited when the appeal was filed, the appellate authority was justified in refusing admission.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal was lawful and is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the penalty order was maintainable when the statutory appeal remedy was not availed within time?

Analysis: The penalty order was appealable under Section 31, but no appeal was filed at all within the permissible period. In these circumstances, the challenge to the omission of the proviso enabling condonation of further delay could not confer relief, and the case did not fall within the exceptions permitting writ jurisdiction despite an available alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both writ petitions fail because the statutory pre-deposit requirement was not satisfied in one matter and the appellate remedy was not pursued in the other.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes pre-deposit a condition for admission of an appeal, the requirement must be strictly complied with and cannot be met by adjustment unless the statute expressly permits it; where an effective statutory appeal remedy exists and is not availed within time, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be entertained.

---