TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: (i) whether the review applications were maintainable under the settled grounds for review; (ii) whether the appellants could rely on prior acquittal or absence of prosecution to seek review and waiver of the pre-deposit direction; and (iii) whether non-compliance with the pre-deposit order warranted dismissal of the appeals.
Issue (i): whether the review applications were maintainable under the settled grounds for review.
Analysis: Review lies only on the limited grounds recognised by Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely discovery of new and important matter or evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason of comparable nature. The material placed did not disclose any fresh fact that was unavailable despite due diligence, nor any patent error in the earlier order. A review cannot be used as a substitute for rehearing or to correct an allegedly erroneous decision merely because another view is possible.
Conclusion: The review applications were not maintainable on the grounds urged and were liable to be rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the appellants could rely on prior acquittal or absence of prosecution to seek review and waiver of the pre-deposit direction.
Analysis: The absence of prosecution against one appellant and the acquittal of the other were matters existing before the earlier order on waiver of pre-deposit. Those facts were within the appellants' knowledge and could not constitute new evidence. The order also proceeded on the settled principle that adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent, and the standard of proof in adjudication is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The earlier release of seized money could not be read to dispense with the ordered percentage pre-deposit of the effective penalty.
Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to review or to any modification of the pre-deposit direction on the basis of the criminal proceedings or the seized amount.
Issue (iii): whether non-compliance with the pre-deposit order warranted dismissal of the appeals.
Analysis: The conditional order requiring deposit of a specified percentage of the penalty and security for the balance had not been complied with even after the extended time granted by the High Court. In those circumstances, the statutory requirement governing the maintainability of the appeals remained unsatisfied.
Conclusion: The appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.
Final Conclusion: The tribunal found no ground to reopen the earlier order, and the failure to satisfy the pre-deposit condition led to dismissal of both the review applications and the connected appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: Review is confined to the narrow grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, and where a statutory pre-deposit condition remains unfulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
