Mandatory pre-deposit non-compliance bars restoration of dismissed appeals; Tribunal becomes functus officio

The Tribunal could not restore appeals dismissed for failure to comply with mandatory pre-deposit directions. The appeals had already been rejected after non-compliance with orders of the Tribunal, the High Court, and the Supreme Court, and the later restoration requests were filed belatedly without sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Once the conditional deposit requirement was not met, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to revive the dismissed appeals and became functus officio in relation to them. The restoration and condonation orders were therefore unsustainable, and the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could restore the respondents' appeals and condone delay after the appeals had been dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit directions.

Analysis: The appeals had earlier been dismissed because the required pre-deposit was not made despite orders of the Tribunal, the High Court, and the Supreme Court. The subsequent restoration applications were filed belatedly by the Directors, and the Court found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Once the conditional direction for deposit was not complied with, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to revive the appeals and had become functus officio in relation to those dismissed appeals.

Conclusion: The restoration and condonation orders were unsustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

---