Statutory pre-deposit requirement upheld, yet writ relief allowed fresh appellate hearing after compliance with deposit condition.

The statutory pre-deposit requirement operated as a condition precedent to entertainment of the appeal, and the appellate authority had no power to waive it. The writ court, however, could grant equitable relief in appropriate hardship cases by allowing the assessee to make the required deposit and seek consideration of the appeal on merits. On the facts, the petitioner was ready to deposit the amount, so the dismissal order was set aside and the appellate authority was directed to hear the appeal afresh after compliance with the deposit condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with an appellate order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits on deposit of the requisite amount.

Analysis: The statutory scheme made deposit a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal, and the appellate authority was not empowered to waive that requirement. At the same time, the Court applied the equitable principle recognised in earlier decisions that, in appropriate cases of hardship, the writ court may grant relief by enabling the assessee to make the statutory deposit and obtain consideration of the appeal on merits. On the facts, the petitioner expressed readiness to deposit the required amount, and the impugned dismissal order was therefore set aside to facilitate a fresh hearing after compliance with the deposit condition.

Conclusion: The writ court interfered and restored the petitioner's opportunity to pursue the appeal, subject to making the statutory pre-deposit, and the appellate authority was directed to hear the matter afresh.

---