IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision emphasized the consideration of financial hardship in permitting payment of the pre-deposit in instalments and directing the appellate authority to entertain the appeals without insisting on the balance 10% of the pre-deposit.

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the orders dated 01.12.2023 passed by the learned Judge in W.P. Nos. 35066 and 35051 of 2022.

1. Both these appeals are filed by the Salem Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Salem, aggrieved by the separate orders dated 01.12.2023 passed by the learned Judge in W.P. Nos. 35066 and 35051 of 2022.

2. The appellant has filed the aforesaid writ petitions challenging the orders dated 30.09.2022 passed by the second respondent refusing to entertain the appeals filed by them against the orders of assessment dated 26.03.2022 of the first respondent, for the assessment years 2019-2020 and 2018-2019 respectively.

3. According to the appellant, as against the orders of assessment dated 26.03.2022 passed by the first respondent for the assessment years in question, they have filed statutory appeals before the second respondent. While filing the appeals, the appellant could not remit the 20% of the amount towards pre-deposit along with the appeals, due to extreme financial hardship confronted by them and hence, they prayed the second respondent to adjudicate the appeals without the pre-deposit. Notwithstanding the plea of the appellant, the second respondent passed the orders dated 30.09.2022 permitting the appellant to deposit the 20% of the amount in two equal instalments out of which the first instalment shall be remitted before 31.12.2022 and the second instalment on or before 15.03.2023. Aggrieved by such orders dated 30.09.2022 of the second respondent, the appellant has filed the Writ Petitions before the writ court.

4. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned Judge concluded that already the appellate authority has given relief by directing the appellant to remit the 20% of the amount towards pre-deposit in two equal instalments, while so, the plea of waiver made by the appellant cannot be considered. However, taking note of the financial hardship expressed by the appellant, the learned Judge permitted the appellant to deposit the amount in three instalments. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2023 of the learned Judge, the appellant has come up with the present writ appeals.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the fact that the appellant bank is reeling under extreme financial doldrums and that was the reason they have approached the second respondent with applications seeking waiver and also filed the writ petitions before the learned Judge for the same reason. According to the learned counsel, the Assessing Officer passed the orders of assessment mainly on the ground that the appellant did not upload the Form Nos. 15G and 15H along with the returns. It is further stated that the customers of the appellant bank are agriculturists and they are exempted from payment of Income Tax under Section 80P (2) of the Income Tax Act. While so, the assessment orders itself are not legally not sustainable and therefore the appellant sought for waiver of the pre-deposit of 20% of the amount. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that if the appeals are entertained on merits, the appellant has every chance to convince the appellate authority about the legal flaw committed by the Assessing Officer and succeed in the appeals. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for a direction to the appellate authority to entertain the appeals without pre-deposit.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior standing counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the relief sought in the writ appeals by contending that remitting 20% of the amount arrived at by the Assessing Officer is a condition precedent for entertaining the statutory appeals. In fact, taking note of the financial difficulties portrayed by the appellant, the Appellate Authority permitted the appellant to remit the amount in two instalments, which was further modified by the learned Judge to be paid in three instalments. Therefore, the appel