https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145188 A subordinate rule could not impose a mandatory pre-deposit as a condition for revision where the parent statute conferred only a discretionary power on the revisional authority to require deposit before deciding the matter. The court held that the appellate provision mandated pre-deposit, but the revisional provision, even after insertion of sub-section 3A, did not create the same compulsory requirement. Rule 61-A was therefore more onerous than the statute and could not prevail. The impugned order demanding deposit before hearing the revision was quashed, and the assessee succeeded. en-us Fri, 07 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:04:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145188 A subordinate rule could not impose a mandatory pre-deposit as a condition for revision where the parent statute conferred only a discretionary power on the revisional authority to require deposit before deciding the matter. The court held that the appellate provision mandated pre-deposit, but the revisional provision, even after insertion of sub-section 3A, did not create the same compulsory requirement. Rule 61-A was therefore more onerous than the statute and could not prevail. The impugned order demanding deposit before hearing the revision was quashed, and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 07 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145188