HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the appellate authority (R-1) had erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for alleged non-compliance with the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement. HC held that the amount already deposited by the petitioner under protest constituted sufficient compliance with the statutory pre-deposit condition and ought to have been reckoned for entertaining the appeal on merits. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 at Annexure-H was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to R-1 for fresh consideration of the statutory appeal on merits, strictly in accordance with law, without insisting on any further pre-deposit from the petitioner.
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the appellate authority (R-1) had erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for alleged non-compliance with the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement. HC held that the amount already deposited by the petitioner under protest constituted sufficient compliance with the statutory pre-deposit condition and ought to have been reckoned for entertaining the appeal on merits. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 at Annexure-H was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to R-1 for fresh consideration of the statutory appeal on merits, strictly in accordance with law, without insisting on any further pre-deposit from the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
