Restoration after pre-deposit default denied where long delay followed final dismissal and no jurisdictional error was shown.

Restoration of an appeal after dismissal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition may be refused where the assessee furnishes the bank guarantee only after an inordinate delay and the earlier dismissal has already remained undisturbed. The Tribunal can treat such prolonged delay as material and decline restoration on that basis. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, interference is limited to jurisdictional error or manifest illegality; absent either defect, the challenged restoration order will not be interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal rightly refused to restore the appeal after the assessee failed to comply with the pre-deposit order and furnished the bank guarantee only after a long delay, and whether the High Court should interfere in supervisory jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed for non-compliance with the conditional deposit requirement, and the earlier writ petition challenging that dismissal had also failed. Once the Tribunal's dismissal order had been carried into and left undisturbed by the High Court, the subsequent furnishing of the bank guarantee after about three years did not entitle the assessee to seek restoration as of right. The Tribunal was justified in treating the prolonged delay as material and in declining to restore the appeal. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, interference is confined to jurisdictional error or manifest illegality, and the challenged order disclosed neither.

Conclusion: The refusal to restore the appeal was upheld and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In supervisory jurisdiction, a restoration request cannot succeed after inordinate delay and prior final dismissal for non-compliance of a pre-deposit condition unless the Tribunal's order suffers from jurisdictional error or manifest illegality.

---