Mandatory pre-deposit cured after rejection: appellate dismissal set aside and appeal remitted for fresh consideration.

An appeal rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit condition was found unsustainable once the required deposit had subsequently been made good. The court noted that, because the defect in maintainability had been cured, the rejection order could not stand. It did not examine the merits of the underlying dispute and instead required the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The rejection order was therefore quashed and the matter remitted for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of the appeal for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement was sustainable after the deposit had been made good.

Analysis: The appeal had been rejected for want of compliance with the pre-deposit condition prescribed for maintainability. The record showed that the mandatory deposit had subsequently been made good. In these circumstances, the rejection order could not be sustained. Since the court did not enter into the merits of the dispute, the proper course was to require the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The rejection order was quashed and the assessee obtained a direction for fresh disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority.

---