Conditional remand in tax appeal allows merits hearing on further deposit while factual input tax credit dispute is re-examined.

A writ challenge concerning delayed filing of an appeal was allowed to proceed on merits because a pre-deposit had already been made and an additional deposit was directed within a stipulated time. The delay was treated as capable of being condoned subject to compliance with the deposit condition, so limitation did not operate as an absolute bar. The dispute over alleged excess or short availment of Input Tax Credit and related payments was not finally decided, because the Court found that the rival claims required fresh factual verification. The matter was therefore remitted to the appellate authority for reconsideration after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate remedy could be permitted to proceed despite the delay in filing the appeal, on compliance with a further deposit condition; (ii) Whether the dispute concerning alleged excess or short availment of Input Tax Credit and related payments required fresh factual determination by the appellate authority.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate remedy could be permitted to proceed despite the delay in filing the appeal, on compliance with a further deposit condition.

Analysis: The appeal had been filed beyond the limitation period, but the record showed that a 10% pre-deposit had already been made. The Court balanced the interests of both sides by allowing the matter to be taken up on merits if the petitioner made an additional deposit within the stipulated period, and directed that the appeal be entertained without further reference to limitation upon such compliance.

Conclusion: The delay was not treated as an absolute bar, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to have the appeal heard on merits subject to the further deposit condition.

Issue (ii): Whether the dispute concerning alleged excess or short availment of Input Tax Credit and related payments required fresh factual determination by the appellate authority.

Analysis: The Court noted that the respondents had not conclusively determined whether the amounts asserted by the petitioner were properly accounted for, and that the rival claims regarding Input Tax Credit, tax payments, and supplier-side payment required detailed scrutiny. Since the controversy turned on factual verification, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication by the appellate authority after hearing the petitioner.

Conclusion: Fresh consideration was required, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for decision on merits after compliance with the deposit condition.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition resulted in a conditional remand, preserving the petitioner's opportunity to pursue the appeal on merits while leaving the factual tax dispute to be decided afresh by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal presents disputed factual issues concerning tax liability and input tax credit, the Court may secure the revenue by imposing a further deposit condition and remit the matter for fresh decision on merits rather than finally adjudicating the dispute in writ proceedings.

---