https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769818 Review jurisdiction was declined where the petitioner sought to reopen a challenge to a mandatory pre-deposit condition. The court reaffirmed that the right of appeal is statutory and may be subject to lawful conditions, and that Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to bypass those requirements. It found no basis to direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits without compliance with pre-deposit and held that no error justifying review had been shown. The earlier order therefore remained undisturbed, and no waiver of pre-deposit was granted. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 May 2025 08:54:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769818 Review jurisdiction was declined where the petitioner sought to reopen a challenge to a mandatory pre-deposit condition. The court reaffirmed that the right of appeal is statutory and may be subject to lawful conditions, and that Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to bypass those requirements. It found no basis to direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits without compliance with pre-deposit and held that no error justifying review had been shown. The earlier order therefore remained undisturbed, and no waiver of pre-deposit was granted. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769818