TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit order passed under the appellate provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
Analysis: The Tribunal treated the application styled as one for modification as, in substance, an attempt to seek review of its earlier order directing pre-deposit. It held that no ground for review was made out, as there was no error apparent on the face of the record, no newly discovered evidence, and no comparable basis for reopening the earlier direction. The Tribunal further held that the second proviso to Section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was clear and unambiguous, and therefore could not be rewritten or diluted on equitable considerations. Since the appellant failed to make the ordered deposit and had been put on notice that non-compliance would result in dismissal, the Tribunal found no justification to entertain the appeal further.
Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes pre-deposit a condition for maintaining an appeal and the language of the dispensing proviso is clear, the Tribunal has no authority to relax that requirement beyond the statutory limits, and failure to comply with a lawful pre-deposit order justifies dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
