Belated statutory pre-deposit may be condoned, allowing a timely appeal to be restored and heard on merits.

Where an appeal is filed within time but the statutory pre-deposit is made late, belated compliance may be condoned and the appeal restored for decision on merits. The later Supreme Court authority was treated as overriding the earlier view relied on for rejection, so the procedural default in deposit did not permanently defeat the appellate remedy. On that basis, time was granted to make the deposit, and the order rejecting the appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit was set aside subject to compliance with the Court's directions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could be permitted to make the statutory pre-deposit belatedly and have the appeal restored; (ii) Whether the rejection of the appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit was liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could be permitted to make the statutory pre-deposit belatedly and have the appeal restored.

Analysis: The appeal had been filed within time, but the prescribed pre-deposit was not made. The Court noted that the earlier view relied upon for rejecting the appeal stood impliedly overruled by the later Supreme Court authority, and that the principle emerging from the later decision was that belated compliance with the pre-deposit requirement could be condoned and the appeal could be directed to be decided on merits. In the circumstances, and without entering into the merits of the assessment, the Court found it to grant time for deposit and permit restoration of the appeal upon compliance.

Conclusion: Yes. The petitioner was permitted to make the pre-deposit within the time fixed by the Court, and upon such compliance the appeal was directed to be restored and heard on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The appeal had been rejected solely for want of the mandatory pre-deposit. Since the Court accepted the petitioner's entitlement to make the deposit within the time granted and directed restoration on such compliance, the order rejecting the appeal could not stand once the condition was fulfilled. The Court therefore treated the rejection as unsustainable subject to compliance with the directions issued.

Conclusion: Yes, subject to the petitioner making the directed deposit within time, the rejection order was set aside and the appeal restored.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by granting conditional relief to the petitioner to regularise the appeal through delayed pre-deposit and secure adjudication of the appeal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory pre-deposit is made belatedly but the appellate remedy is otherwise timely invoked, the delay in compliance may be condoned and the appeal restored for decision on merits rather than being defeated on a rigid procedural default.

---