Pre-deposit non-compliance and abusive writ invocation led to rejection of a challenge to appeal dismissal.

A petition challenging dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit order was found not maintainable where the Tribunal had directed deposit of 30% of the penalty within the stipulated time and warned of dismissal on default. The petitioner did not comply and had stated that it was neither capable of nor intended to comply with the direction. In those circumstances, invoking the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction to question the consequential dismissal was treated as an abuse of process, and the petition was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition challenging dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order was maintainable.

Analysis: The petitioner had been directed by the Tribunal to deposit 30% of the penalty amount within the stipulated time, failing which the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The petitioner did not comply and had also stated before the Tribunal that it was neither capable of nor intended to comply with the pre-deposit direction. In that situation, invocation of the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction to assail the consequential dismissal was held to be an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertained and was rejected against the petitioner.

---