Right of appeal and time-bound disposal required decision on merits, not rejection as time-barred.

A High Court direction permitting withdrawal of a writ petition on the basis of a right of appeal and requiring the appeal to be decided within eight weeks was construed as a mandate to decide the matter on merits. The appellate authority wrongly treated the order as leaving limitation open and rejected the appeal as time-barred. That rejection was unjustified and was set aside, and the appeal was required to be heard and decided in accordance with law without invoking limitation as a ground for dismissal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the assessee's appeal as time-barred, despite the High Court's earlier direction that the appeal be decided within eight weeks.

Analysis: The High Court had earlier permitted withdrawal of the writ petition on the basis that the petitioner had a right of appeal and that the appeal, when filed, was to be decided within eight weeks. That direction was understood as requiring disposal of the appeal on merits. The appellate authority misread the order and treated it as leaving the question of limitation open, whereas the earlier direction did not permit rejection of the appeal merely on the ground of delay.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal on limitation was unjustified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal had to be heard and decided on merits in accordance with law without invoking limitation as a ground of rejection.

Ratio Decidendi: A direction to decide an appeal within a specified time, in the context of a granted right of appeal, implies adjudication on merits and not rejection on limitation unless limitation is expressly preserved.

---