https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390963 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view that the amount already deposited by the respondent constituted sufficient pre-deposit and that the first appellate authority could hear the appeal on merits. It noted that the alleged issue of condonation of delay did not arise from the impugned order, as there was no discussion on delay and no submission on that point before the Tribunal. On the pre-deposit question, the Court accepted the Tribunal's factual assessment that the deposit was about 50% of the tax amount and was adequate in the circumstances, so no substantial question of law arose. en-us Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:14:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390963 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view that the amount already deposited by the respondent constituted sufficient pre-deposit and that the first appellate authority could hear the appeal on merits. It noted that the alleged issue of condonation of delay did not arise from the impugned order, as there was no discussion on delay and no submission on that point before the Tribunal. On the pre-deposit question, the Court accepted the Tribunal's factual assessment that the deposit was about 50% of the tax amount and was adequate in the circumstances, so no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390963