The sole issue is whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by treating the 10% ceiling in the Third Proviso to Section 19(1) as a mandatory minimum despite finding "undue hardship" and poor financial condition. The Court held that "undue hardship" means a burden disproportionate to the requirement; where an NPA-classified appellant lacks liquid assets a multi-crore deposit is prima facie impossible and would render the statutory right of appeal illusory. The Tribunal ought to have imposed alternative conditions (indemnity bonds, corporate guarantees) under the Second Proviso; appeal allowed. - HC
The sole issue is whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by treating the 10% ceiling in the Third Proviso to Section 19(1) as a mandatory minimum despite finding "undue hardship" and poor financial condition. The Court held that "undue hardship" means a burden disproportionate to the requirement; where an NPA-classified appellant lacks liquid assets a multi-crore deposit is prima facie impossible and would render the statutory right of appeal illusory. The Tribunal ought to have imposed alternative conditions (indemnity bonds, corporate guarantees) under the Second Proviso; appeal allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
