JUDGMENT This application under article 226 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated September 24, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. RN-596 of 2010 (Denzong Wines (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2011] 42 VST 34 (WBTT)) thereby affirming the order of the Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated June 18, 2010 in RC No. SG/851 under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. By the order impugned before the Tribunal, the Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the designated authority directed the writ petitioner to make payment of the interest which was the subject-matter of the appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner within fifteen days from the date of issue of the said notice with further direction that in default the said appeal should be held to be not entertainable and the application for settlement would also stand refused. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below has affirmed the said order. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. It appears from the memorandum of appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the order of assessment that the writ petitioner by filing the appeal challenged the imposition of interest of Rs. 12,65,837 as not tenable in the eye of law and consequently filed the appeal. There is no dispute that apart from the said amount of interest assessed by the authority other amount are all paid. After filing of such appeal the writ petitioner for the purpose of taking benefit under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as, "the SOD Act") filed appropriate application under section 5 of the same along with the required amount of fees as mentioned in section 7 of the said Act. According to the provision of the SOD Act, it is the duty of the designated officer to verify whether the said dispute application has been filed after complying with the requirement of the Act and deposit of the payment prescribed under the Act. It is also the duty of the designated authority to see that a valid appeal or revision as the case may be is pending. It is also the duty of the designated authority to see that a valid appeal or revision as the case may be is pending. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner has filled up the application in accordance with law and has also made payment of the required amount as prescribed in section 7 of the SOD Act. The designated officer under the SOD Act was, however, of the view that the pending appeal should not be treated to be a valid pending appeal as the writ petitioner has not deposited the "admitted amount" while preferring the appeal as according to the officer concerned the total amount of interest, namely, Rs. 12,65,837 was payable in accordance with the law. Thus, the designated officer directed the writ petitioner to first make payment of the aforesaid amount so that the appeal can be treated to be a validly pending appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the provisions contained in the West Bengal Sales Tax Act as well as the SOD Act, we find that for the purpose of preferring an appeal under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act an assessee is required to deposit the amount which according to him to be payable and not disputed in the said appeal. In the case before us from the memorandum of appeal presented before the appellate authority it appears that according to the writ petitioner, the entire amount of Rs. 12,65,837 is not due and payable as assessment of such amount was not in accordance with law. Whether such contention is tenable or not, will be decided by the appellate authority if the dispute fails but a designated officer under the SOD Act cannot direct the applicant for settlement of dispute to deposit that amount by treating the said amount as admitted amount. We have already pointed out that in the memorandum of appeal presented before the appellate authority the appellant has very much disputed his liability to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,65,837 and thus according to the provision of the Rules framed under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, he is not under any obligation to deposit the aforesaid amount which he has challenged as not payable. 12,65,837 and thus according to the provision of the Rules framed under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, he is not under any obligation to deposit the aforesaid amount which he has challenged as not payable. The designated authority under the SOD Act, therefore, committed a jurisdictional error in directing the appellant to deposit the amount which he has challenged in the appeal as not payable as condition of entertainment of the application under section 5 of the SOD Act. The Tribunal below also did not appreciate the aforesaid contention of the writ petitioner and erroneously affirmed the order passed by the designated authority. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the designated authority as well as the Tribunal below and direct the designated authority to consider the application for settlement of the dispute filed by the writ petitioner in accordance with law in terms of the provision of the SOD Act without insisting on deposit of any further amount by the writ petitioner as a condition for considering the merit of the application. The writ application is, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above. We make it clear that we have otherwise not gone into either the merit of the appeal or the merit of the settlement of dispute application filed by the writ petitioner. It is for the designated authority to dispose of the said application in accordance with law and if the dispute fails, it will be for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances, there will, however, be no order as to costs.