Pre-deposit requirement in statutory appeal: rejection was quashed and opportunity granted to deposit, enabling merits hearing.

Rejection of a statutory appeal solely for non-deposit of the pre-deposit amount under Section 35F of the Finance Act, 1994 was treated as unjustified where compliance could still be secured. The Court held that one further opportunity should be granted to enable deposit of the required amount so the appeal may be heard on merits. The rejection order was quashed, and the appellant was permitted to make the deposit within the time granted, after which the appellate authority was to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the statutory appeal for non-deposit of the pre-deposit amount was liable to be quashed and the appellant permitted to make the deposit and have the appeal heard on merits.

Analysis: The petition challenged the order rejecting the appeal solely on the ground that the amount required for entertaining the appeal had not been deposited under Section 35F of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court noted that the appeal was a statutory appeal and that the rejection was based only on non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. In these circumstances, the Court held that one further opportunity should be granted to enable compliance with the pre-deposit condition so that the appeal could be considered on merits.

Conclusion: The rejection order was quashed, and the petitioner was permitted to deposit the pre-deposit amount within the time granted, after which the appellate authority was to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

---