Limitation and pre-deposit errors led to quashing of the appellate order and remand for fresh hearing.

An appellate dismissal for limitation and alleged non-deposit was found unsustainable where the online portal reflected an erroneous communication date, while the appeal memo consistently showed the correct date, so the appeal was not time-barred. The record also showed deposit of the pre-deposit amount, defeating the finding of non-compliance. The HC accordingly set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for de novo reconsideration, directing that the authority grant a personal hearing and pass a reasoned decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation and non-deposit of the pre-deposit amount was sustainable, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration after a proper hearing.

Analysis: The communication date recorded in the online portal was found to be an inadvertent error, while the appeal memo consistently stated the correct date, indicating that the appeal was not barred by time. The record also showed deposit of the pre-deposit amount, making the finding of non-deposit unsustainable. In these circumstances, the impugned order was required to be set aside and the matter sent back for reconsideration with an opportunity of personal hearing and a reasoned decision.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the authority for de novo consideration after granting personal hearing, which is in favour of the Petitioner.

---