Judgment Untwalia, C.J, On being directed by this court under section 33 (3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Patna has stated a case and referred only one question of law-the question which it was directed by the High Court to refer. It is in the following terms- "Whether 'reasonable opportunity' mentioned in section 30 (6) of the Act means giving notice by the authorities of each adjourned date when the notice of the case has already been served and parties have appeared." It appears to us that the question will have to be reframed and we shall do so after stating the necessary facts, 2. The assessee in this case is a firm known as Kodarma Glass works. For the period 1964-65 It was assessed to sales tax by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Hazaribagh. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi. There is no dispute that the admitted amount of tax was greater than 20 per centum of the tax assessed. Therefore, before the assessee's appeal could be entertained, it was required in accordance with section 30 (3) of the Act to pay the admitted amount of tax. The appellate authority, as would appear from its order sheet incorporated in the paper book of the reference case, found that the appellant had not paid full admitted tax. This fact was recorded in the order dated 23.6.66. The appellant was asked to show came on 6.7.66 at Ranohi "as to why the appeal should not be struck off." In the said order it was further stated. "The A.C.'s report is incomplete and unfortunately the orders of the lower court do not indicate what is the amount of tax admitted to be payable by the appellant. Specific report on this point should also be obtained from the lower court." On 5.7.66 an application for adjournment sent by the appellant was received in the office of the appellate authority. Although it is not clear how this application was received, it appears, it was received by post. On 6.7.66 the following order was recorded by the Deputy Commissioner "Report from A.C.C.'s Haz has not been received. Stamped petition for him filed with a request to give the appellant a fortnight time, to enable him to produce the evidence of payment of full admitted tax. On 6.7.66 the following order was recorded by the Deputy Commissioner "Report from A.C.C.'s Haz has not been received. Stamped petition for him filed with a request to give the appellant a fortnight time, to enable him to produce the evidence of payment of full admitted tax. Put up on 25.7.66. Report from A.C. should also be called for." Further report from the Assistant Commissioner had been received on 11.7.66. The order recorded on 25.7.66 was to the following effect. "Perused letter no. 2087 dt.8.7.66 from the A.C. Hazaribagh intimating therein that admitted tax according to returns comes to Rs.7544.38 P. during the year 1964-65." In this case the party filed a memorandum of appeal (?) did not mention the amount of tax admitted to be payable. A report was accordingly called for from the A.C. Hazaribagh about the total amount of tax admitted to be payable by the assessee and it is stated that the (sic) according to the returns filed the total amount payable comes to Rs.7,544.58. The appellant has, however, paid a sum of Rs.5838.41. Since the full amount of admitted tax was not paid the appellant was directed to show cause why the petition should not be struck off. On 5.7.66 it was stated that a fortnight's time may be allowed for producing evidence of payment of admitted tax....and the case was adjourned to 25.7.66. On this date also no action has been taken. Since the full amount of admitted tax has not been paid and since the appellant did not produce evidence of payment in spite of opportunities having been granted to him, the memorandum of appeal, which is not entertain-able has to be struck off." Inform the party." 3. The assessee went up in revision before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal from the order dated 25.7.66 of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting his memorandum of appeal. Its case before the Tribunal was that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to it to show cause in the matter or to make the appeal in conformity with the law. Its further case was that it had, as a matter of fact, deposited more than the admitted tax. Its case before the Tribunal was that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to it to show cause in the matter or to make the appeal in conformity with the law. Its further case was that it had, as a matter of fact, deposited more than the admitted tax. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant within the meaning of section 30 (6) of the Act because no intimation was given to it that the 25th of July, 1966 had been fixed as the date in its appeal in the show cause matter. The case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner and, therefore, the correctness of the appellant's contention that it had paid more than the admitted tax was not examined by the Tribunal. 4. We think the question of law directed to be referred and referred to this Court is too wide a question to be decided in this case. Strictly speaking, it does not arise on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case. On the one hand it can be contended on behalf of the assessee, as it was contended in this case, that when adjournment is granted by the appellate authority on an application sent to it and especially by post, it is the duty of that authority to communicate the order made on that application to the appellant. If such an order is not communicated, there may be denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing within the meaning of Section 30 (6) of the Act. On the other hand, it was contended by learned Counsel for the Commercial Taxes Department that it will be too onerous a duty to cast on the appellate authority in each and every case to give information of the adjourned date to the appellant, neither the Act nor the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959 the Rules framed under the Act (hereinafter called the Rules) warrant such a view. Having noticed the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties in connection with the question referred to this Court, we reiterate that this larger question dose not really arise and need not be answered in this case. We reframe the question in the following terms. Having noticed the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties in connection with the question referred to this Court, we reiterate that this larger question dose not really arise and need not be answered in this case. We reframe the question in the following terms. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected in accordance with law? 5. The correct position of law, on reading the provisions of section 30 of the Act and rules 21 and 23 of the Rules is like this. Sub-Section (3) of section 30, to quote the relevant words, says- "No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub section (2) against an order of assessment….shall be entertained unless the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant has paid- (a) in case of an appeal against an order of assessment twenty per centum of the tax assessed or such amount of tax as the appellant may admit to be due from him, which ever is greater..." Sub-section (5) which enumerates the kind of order which the appellate authority can pass while disposing of the appeal does not in term says that the memorandum of appeal is to be rejected if the tax in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (3) has not been paid. That being so, the matter cannot be looked at and confined to the provisions of sub section (6) of section 30, which says – "No order under this section shall be passed without giving the appellant as also the authority whose order or direction is the subject of the appeal, or their representative, a reasonable opportunity of being heard." Whatever is not clearly provided in section 30 has been supplemented by the Rules. Rules 21 says- "An appeal under section 30 shall (e) be accompanied by- X X X (ii) in case of an appeal against assessment, a receipt showing deposit into the Government Treasury of at least 20 per centum of the tax assessed or such amount of tax as the appellant may admit to be due from him, whichever is greater X X X" I shall read rule 23 sub-section (1)- "If a memorandum of appeal or an application for revision does not comply with all the requirements of Rule 21 or 22, as the case may be, the appellate or revisional authority may reject it summarily: Provided that no appeal or application for revision shall be summarily rejected under this sub-rule unless the appellant or applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity to amend the memorandum or application so as to bring it into conformity with all the requirements of rule 21 or rule 22, as the case may be." It would thus be noticed that if a memorandum of appeal does not comply with all the requirements of rule 21, the appellate authority may reject it summarily. One of the requirements is to file a receipt along with the memorandum showing deposit into Government Treasury of the requisite amount of tax. But then, the proviso says that an opportunity has to be given to the appellant to amend the memorandum to bring it in conformity with all the requirements of rule 21. That means that if the receipt showing deposit of the requisite amount has not been filed with the memorandum then the appellant has to be given an opportunity to file the receipt and make the memorandum in accordance with rule 21 of the Rules. The question for consideration is whether an opportunity can be given merely for the filing of the receipt or an opportunity can be given for the deposit of the requisite amount of the deficit amount, if any. Reading what has been provided in sub-section (3) of section 30 of the Act with the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 23 of the Rules, a reasonable and harmonious view to be taken is that an appeal is not to be entertained unless the requisite amount is paid and, therefore, time has got to be granted for the payment of the requisite amount and/or for the filing of the receipt in accordance with rule 21(e). It is not necessary to express any opinion in this case as to which of the requirements of section 30(3) or rule 21 are mandatory and which are merely directory. If any of the said provisions is mandatory, it may well be that, technically speaking, the appeal will be deemed to have been filed on removal of the defect. And, for that an application for condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal may be necessary. If, however, any requirement is directory then the removal of the defect caused by the non-fulfilment of the directory requirement will not make, even technically, the appeal as one having been filed out of time. This question does not arise in this case. 6. After having discussed and explained the law with reference to the provisions of the act and the Rules, what is to be noticed, on the facts of this case, is that the appellate authority was not sure till it recorded its order dated 6.7.66 that the appellant had not paid the requisite amount. It became sure when it recorded its order dated 25.7.66 that the appellant had not deposited the requisite amount. It was, therefore, necessary for the appellate authority on 25.7.66 to issue a fresh notice to the appellant asking it to deposit the deficit amount or to show cause why the memorandum should not be rejected under sub-rule (1) of rule 23 of the Rules. Nothing of the kind was done by the Deputy Commissioner on 25.7.66. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal that a reasonable opportunity was not given to the assessee appellant before its memorandum of appeal was rejected is correct and the reframed question of law has got to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It is accordingly answered. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to cost. Reference Answered.