G Khanna and Company vs Union of India

4.. ______________________________________________________ CORAM M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED: 23 September 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per M. S. Sonak, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in this Petition is to the Order dated 19 September 2024 by which the Appellate Authority rejected the Petitioner’s Appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory condition of pre-deposit of 10% of the tax amount. (5) WP-208.25.DOCX The Appellate Authority reasoned that 10% of the tax amount would come to approximately Rs.12,76,000/- and the Petitioner had deposited only Rs.8.62 lakhs. 4. Mr. Mahesh Raichandani, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that firstly, there was no short deposit. Secondly, and in any event, considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of JEM Exporter Vs Union of India1 and D N Polymers Vs Union of India & ors 2, the Appeal could not have been rejected without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to satisfy the Appellate Authority that there was no short deposit and to make goo