<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Pre-deposit requirement for penalty appeals must consider undue hardship; mechanical 10% dismissal set aside and modified</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96075</link>
    <description>Whether dismissal for non-compliance with the 10% pre-deposit condition was lawful where appellants pleaded financial incapacity and counsel communication gaps - the court held the Tribunal erred by mechanically enforcing Section 19(1) without applying the undue-hardship doctrine; it must assess whether the pre-deposit renders the statutory right of appeal illusory, especially where the existence of the appellant as a going concern is at stake, balancing that inquiry against the Revenue&#039;s legitimate interest in safeguarding penalty realization - consequence: the Tribunal&#039;s dismissal was unsustainable, the pre-deposit threshold was modified to avoid miscarriage of justice and the appeals were disposed of accordingly. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:44:02 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:44:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=879126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Pre-deposit requirement for penalty appeals must consider undue hardship; mechanical 10% dismissal set aside and modified</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96075</link>
      <description>Whether dismissal for non-compliance with the 10% pre-deposit condition was lawful where appellants pleaded financial incapacity and counsel communication gaps - the court held the Tribunal erred by mechanically enforcing Section 19(1) without applying the undue-hardship doctrine; it must assess whether the pre-deposit renders the statutory right of appeal illusory, especially where the existence of the appellant as a going concern is at stake, balancing that inquiry against the Revenue&#039;s legitimate interest in safeguarding penalty realization - consequence: the Tribunal&#039;s dismissal was unsustainable, the pre-deposit threshold was modified to avoid miscarriage of justice and the appeals were disposed of accordingly. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:44:02 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>