https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212913 A tax appeal subject to pre-deposit could not be admitted unless proof of payment of the admitted tax or 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax was produced within the statutory sixty-day admission period. The second proviso to section 19(1) was held to operate with the first proviso and not as an independent code, making timely proof of payment a condition precedent to admission. Belated payment did not cure the defect, because the Act contained no provision for treating late compliance as effective from the date of filing. The Rules could not extend or dilute this mandatory statutory requirement, so the appeals were rightly rejected. en-us Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jul 2014 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212913 A tax appeal subject to pre-deposit could not be admitted unless proof of payment of the admitted tax or 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax was produced within the statutory sixty-day admission period. The second proviso to section 19(1) was held to operate with the first proviso and not as an independent code, making timely proof of payment a condition precedent to admission. Belated payment did not cure the defect, because the Act contained no provision for treating late compliance as effective from the date of filing. The Rules could not extend or dilute this mandatory statutory requirement, so the appeals were rightly rejected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212913