Back
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Indrajit Mahanty, CJ., S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Md. Masud Ahmmed - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Anr. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 481of 2022
Decided On : 05-09-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's inability to deposit pre-deposit affects appeal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. importance of appellate remedy acknowledged (Para 3) |
| 3. conditions for appeal restoration set forth (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. matter disposed of with conditions (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Indrajit Mahanty; CJ. - Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
1. The petitioner herein, namely, Md. Masud Ahmed, has sought to challenge the order dated 18.05.2022 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner before the authority, on the ground of non deposit of the 50% of the statutory tax and penalty assessed. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the amount of 50% of tax and penalty worked out to the amount of Rs.3,33,425/- and the financial condition of the petitioner did not permit him to make such pre deposit. As a consequence of which the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit indicating the immovable asset the petitioner has in his name and pursuant to such directions, an affidavit came to be filed by the petitioner. The said affidavit dated 28.08.2022 indicates in Schedule - A,B,C and D, the four properties in which the petitioner claims to have common interest with the other successors of his late father. But the learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not have any liquid assests other than the immovable assests to the extent of his interest along with the other successors in the aforesaid four properties.
3. This Court is of the considered view that the appellate remedy is an important remedy and inability of the party to deposit the pre-deposit ought not to deprive such an appellant from such remedy.
4. Therefore, in our considered view, the appeal be restored before the first appellate authority from the petitioner appellant submitting an undertaking before the appellate Court that he shall not in any manner dispose of his undivided interest in Schedule-A,B,C and D scheduled property without leave of the appellate court's directions and /or upon disposal of the appeal. On these grounds, the impugned order dated 18.05.2022 under Annexure-8 is set aside. The appellant shall comply with the directions noted hereinabove and the appellate authority shall do well take up the matter and dispose of the same on its own merit in accordance with law within a period of 3(three) months from today.
5. The impugned order under Annexure-8 requiring the petitioner-appellant to deposit the pre-deposit stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove and in the event the appeal has been disposed of in the meantime, the same be restored to file, heard and disposed of on its own merits subject to the petitioner-appellant complying with the directions noted hereinabove.
6. In terms of the above, the matter stands disposed of. Copy of this order be supplied to Mr.K.De, learned Addl.GA.
A party's financial inability to make a pre-deposit should not bar access to appellate remedies, provided they commit to conditions set by the court.
A writ petition under Article 226 can be contingent upon preconditions such as deposit of disputed tax to enable an appeal.
Writ petition against GST order under Section 74 disposed with liberty to appeal upon 25% tax pre-deposit.
Judicial review permits remittance of tax disputes for merit-based evaluation upon compliance with pre-deposit conditions.
The court allows remittance for re-adjudication of tax matters subject to stipulated pre-deposits, balancing interests of both parties.
S.107 CGST mandates only 10% pre-deposit for GST appeals; court allows compliance for restoration.
The court allows remittance for fresh adjudication contingent upon deposit conditions in GST disputes.
Court emphasizes conditions for remitting tax cases for new adjudication, requiring additional deposits and compliance for further proceedings.
A petitioner may challenge an order when they have not utilized previous procedural opportunities, and the court can remand the case back for fresh adjudication upon stipulated conditions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
