https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785037 Whether dismissal for non-compliance with the 10% pre-deposit under s.19(1) violated the undue hardship doctrine: HC held that the Tribunal failed to balance the statutory pre-deposit mandate with the undue hardship principle; where a party alleges that its existence as a going concern is at stake, the Tribunal must assess whether the pre-deposit requirement renders the statutory right of appeal illusory. While recognizing the proviso's object of safeguarding realization of penalty, the Court found that dismissal on technicalities without hearing merits offends natural justice. Outcome: the appeals were allowed (disposed of) and the pre-deposit threshold was directed to be suitably modified to avert injustice. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:03:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785037 Whether dismissal for non-compliance with the 10% pre-deposit under s.19(1) violated the undue hardship doctrine: HC held that the Tribunal failed to balance the statutory pre-deposit mandate with the undue hardship principle; where a party alleges that its existence as a going concern is at stake, the Tribunal must assess whether the pre-deposit requirement renders the statutory right of appeal illusory. While recognizing the proviso's object of safeguarding realization of penalty, the Court found that dismissal on technicalities without hearing merits offends natural justice. Outcome: the appeals were allowed (disposed of) and the pre-deposit threshold was directed to be suitably modified to avert injustice. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785037