Pre-deposit compliance under Section 35F cannot justify dismissal where the required amount was already paid.

Dismissal of an appeal for alleged non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction was unsustainable where the record showed that the amount ordered under the earlier Section 35F direction had already been deposited and that compliance was not disputed. The later order rested on an incorrect assumption of default, so its foundation failed and reflected non-application of mind. The dismissal was set aside and the appeal restored to the Tribunal for decision on merits according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal for alleged non-compliance with the pre-deposit order was sustainable when the earlier direction under Section 35F had already been complied with.

Analysis: The petitioner had deposited the amount directed under the earlier pre-deposit order, and the respondent did not dispute that compliance. The impugned order proceeded on the assumption that there had been default in complying with that earlier direction. Since that assumption was incorrect, the foundation of the dismissal could not be sustained, and the order reflected non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The dismissal was set aside and the appeal was restored to the Tribunal for disposal on merits according to law.

---