Pre-deposit compliance cannot be extended after repeated default, and delayed writ relief was refused.

Statutory pre-deposit compliance under the appellate scheme could not be extended after the assessee failed to deposit within the time already granted, including the further indulgence allowed by the writ court. The court noted that it could not direct the Tribunal to act beyond its statutory powers or issue a mandamus to extend time against its own earlier order. As the petitioner approached only after substantial delay and no basis existed to reopen the earlier indulgent order, the request for further extension was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should extend the time for pre-deposit under the appellate pre-deposit requirement and direct the Tribunal to accept a delayed deposit after the petitioner failed to comply within the time already granted.

Analysis: The appeal before the Tribunal was subject to the statutory pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal had initially granted partial relief by permitting a reduced deposit, and the writ court had already extended the time for compliance. The petitioner nevertheless failed to deposit the amount within the extended time and approached the court only after substantial delay. The court held that it could not direct the Tribunal to do what the Tribunal had no power to do, nor could it issue a mandamus to extend time against itself. The circumstances did not justify reopening or reviewing the earlier order granting indulgence.

Conclusion: The request for extension of time for pre-deposit was rejected, and the writ petition failed.

---