JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. The learned advocate for the petitioner has tendered additional affidavit of the petitioner. The same is taken on record. 2. Rule. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Second Appeal No.485 of 2018 as well as the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as "the first appellate authority"), and seeks restoration of the appeal before the appellate authority. 4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that pursuant to a spot visit at the business premises of the petitioner by the officers of the Commercial Tax Department on 21.05.2009, the books of account of the petitioner came to be seized. Thereafter, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner, which culminated into an order dated 31.03.2017 raising a demand of Rs.4,33,01,858/-, including tax and 100% penalty. 4.1 Being aggrieved, the petitioner went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals), Mehsana. By the impugned order dated 16.03.2018, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal under sub-section (4) of section 73 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the ground that the petitioner had not made pre-deposit of 10% of the demand. 4.2 The petitioner carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal in Second Appeal No.485 of 2018. By an order dated 10.05.2018, the Tribunal admitted the second appeal and stayed recovery proceedings on condition of the petitioner depositing rupees thirty lakhs within one month. Subsequently, by the order dated 09.08.2018, the time limit for making the pre-deposit came to be extended till 11.09.2018. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 11.09.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the second appeal for want of compliance of pre-deposit of rupees thirty lakhs as directed by the order dated 10.05.2018. 5. Mr. Subsequently, by the order dated 09.08.2018, the time limit for making the pre-deposit came to be extended till 11.09.2018. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 11.09.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the second appeal for want of compliance of pre-deposit of rupees thirty lakhs as directed by the order dated 10.05.2018. 5. Mr. Bhargav Karia, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the order dated 10.5.2018 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No.485 of 2018, to submit that the Tribunal had admitted the second appeal and had stayed the recovery proceedings on condition of appellant depositing Rs.30,00,000/- within one month. It was submitted that thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the order, by the impugned order dated 11.9.2018, the Tribunal has dismissed the second appeal for want of compliance of pre-deposit. It was submitted that vide the order dated 10.5.2018, the Tribunal had admitted the appeal and the deposit was to be made only for stay of recovery proceedings and was not a condition precedent for admission of the appeal and, therefore, the appeal could not have been dismissed for want of compliance of pre-deposit. 5.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner has also invited the attention of the court to the merits of the case, to submit that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Rupera Transport v. State of Gujarat rendered in Second Appeal No.330 of 2001. It was submitted that therefore, the petitioner has got a very good case on merits and hence, the petitioner may not be directed to make any pre-deposit and that furnishing of a bond in respect of the said property should meet with the ends of justice. 5.2 It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of rupees two lakhs by way of pre-deposit and in addition thereto, by way of security, the petitioner is ready and willing to offer a non-agriculture land for industrial purpose belonging to Shri Bhupendrasingh Hakamsingh Luhar, director of the petitioner Company, viz., land admeasuring 4165 square metre, situated at old Survey No.97, 98 and 99 and Block No.97 of village Ditasan, Registration District Mehsana, Sub-District Mehsana as the said land is free from all encumbrances. It is further submitted that the market value of the said land is approximately rupees two crore. A copy of the sale deed dated 4th August, 2014 has also been placed on record. It is submitted that the Director of the petitioner Company shall undertake to execute a bond in his personal capacity as well as in the capacity of a Director of the petitioner Company to the effect that he shall not transfer, alienate, sell or create any encumbrance over the said land. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the first appellate authority had directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the demand, whereas the Tribunal had directed the petitioner to deposit a nominal amount of rupees thirty lakhs as compared to the demand and hence, there is no warrant for interference with the impugned orders. 7. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 8. As is evident from the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal had admitted the second appeal and had directed the petitioner to deposit rupees thirty lakhs for stay of recovery proceedings. Therefore, the question of dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit would not arise. 9. 8. As is evident from the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal had admitted the second appeal and had directed the petitioner to deposit rupees thirty lakhs for stay of recovery proceedings. Therefore, the question of dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit would not arise. 9. Insofar as payment of an amount of rupees thirty lakhs for stay of recovery is concerned, since the Tribunal itself had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of rupees thirty lakhs for the purpose of staying the recovery proceedings, the court is of the view that when the petitioner is coming forth to offer the land described hereinabove which worth approximately rupees two crore by way of security and is also ready and willing to execute a bond in respect of the said property, as referred to hereinabove, which is more than sufficient to secure the interest of the revenue and is also ready and willing to make a pre-deposit of rupees two lakhs, the interests of justice would be met with if the appeal is restored at the stage of the first appellate authority by directing the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of rupees two lakhs and to execute a bond in respect of the said property referred to hereinabove, together with an undertaking of the owner of the property to the effect that he shall not in any manner transfer, alienate or encumber the said property. 10. In the light of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No.485 of 2018 as well as the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals), Mehsana, are hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal is restored at the stage of appellate authority. The impugned order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No.485 of 2018 as well as the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals), Mehsana, are hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal is restored at the stage of appellate authority. The petitioner shall make a pre-deposit of rupees two lakhs and in additional thereto, Shri Bhupendrasingh Hakamsingh Luhar, Director of the petitioner Company, shall execute a bond in his personal capacity as well as in the capacity of a Director of the petitioner Company and offer the said property, viz., the land admeasuring 4165 square metre, situated at old Survey No.97, 98 and 99 and Block No.97 of village Ditasan, Registration District Mehsana, Sub-District Mehsana, by way of security; and shall further file an undertaking before this court to the effect that he shall not in any manner transfer, alienate or encumber the said property, within one week from today. 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted.