https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105102 Provisos to section 20(1) and section 21(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 were upheld as valid because they lawfully made payment of the assessed tax or penalty, with limited discretion to allow a deposit of not less than fifty per cent, a condition precedent to entertaining an appeal or revision. The Court treated the pre-deposit requirement as consistent with earlier authority on comparable statutory conditions and held that ordinary compliance was mandatory. At the same time, constitutional writ jurisdiction remained available in exceptional cases of gross injustice or palpable illegality, so the statutory remedy scheme did not exclude judicial review. The challenge to the provisos therefore failed. en-us Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Nov 2015 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105102 Provisos to section 20(1) and section 21(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 were upheld as valid because they lawfully made payment of the assessed tax or penalty, with limited discretion to allow a deposit of not less than fifty per cent, a condition precedent to entertaining an appeal or revision. The Court treated the pre-deposit requirement as consistent with earlier authority on comparable statutory conditions and held that ordinary compliance was mandatory. At the same time, constitutional writ jurisdiction remained available in exceptional cases of gross injustice or palpable illegality, so the statutory remedy scheme did not exclude judicial review. The challenge to the provisos therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105102