- (1.)The present tax appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:
"(A) Whether, the Tribunal erred in adjudicating on merits despite first appellate authority adjudicated only on the issue of pre-deposit?

(B) Whether the Tribunal erred in not directing that for computing interest liability for subsequent year the assessee will not get benefit of carried forward input-tax credit ?"

Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the respondent-dealer and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present tax appeal is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.)The main grievance, which is voiced in the present tax appeal, is that despite the fact that the appeal before the learned Tribunal was against the order passed by the first appellate authority on pre-deposit and or against the order passed by the first appellate authority dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-deposit of pre-deposit, the learned Tribunal instead of considering the legality and validity of the order passed by the first appellate authority dismissing the appeal on non-payment of the amount of pre-deposit has entered into the merits of the case and has decided the appeal before it as if the appeal before it was against the order passed by the first appellate authority on merits.
(3.)Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-dealer, is not in a position to dispute the above facts.