ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Learned advocate Ms.Vaibhavi Parikh for the appellant tendered draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith. 2. This Appeal arises out of order dated 09th June, 2023 in Second Appeal No.291 of 2020 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, on the ground of non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit dated 02nd March, 2023. 3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Vaibhavi Parikh for the appellant. 4. In this Appeal, the following substantial questions of law are raised by the appellant. “(i) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in confirming the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 96,88,278/- quantified by the lower authority. (i)(a) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, pre- deposit amount at the rate of 20% of the tax amount confirmed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was just, fair and proper and in correct exercise of judicial discretion vested in it. (1)(b) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law in interpreting Section 73(4) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. (ii) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in confirming the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 96,88,278/- as quantified by the Jt. Commissioner (Appeals) without analyzing and examining the documentary evidences produced by the appellant and without providing any reasons for confirming the same. (ii)(a) Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the appellant was not entitled to get input tax credit under Section 11 of the GVAT Act on the ground that a vendor’s registration was cancelled ab initio and mis-match in the amount of input tax credit as per Form 201A filed by a vendor. (iii) Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the appellant was not entitled to get input tax credit under Section 11 of the GVAT Act on the ground that the vendor's registration was cancelled ab initio. (iv) Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the appellant was not entitled to get entire amount of input tax credit under Section 11 on the ground that there was mis- match in the amount of input tax credit as per Form 201A filed by a vendor. (v) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law in holding that merely because the vendor dealer has failed to pay the necessary taxes into the Government Treasury, the amount of tax can be recovered from the purchasing dealer more so when the same was valid and subsisting when the transaction took place. (vi) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the order of Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal is perverse in as much as: (a) it fails to take into consideration and take proper cognizance of the various documentary evidences placed before it; (b) it fails in not considering, adjudicating and dealing with the arguments and submissions made by the appellant; (c) it fails to take cognizance of the fact that even on merits of the appellant's case no amount of tax and interest is required to be paid by the appellant in the facts and the circumstances of the case; (d) it fails to consider and adjudicate upon the grounds challenging the gross violation of principles of natural justice which includes failure of the lower authorities to appreciate and examine the evidences and denial of opportunity to rebut the claims made by the Adjudicating Authority which has been merely upheld by the Jt. Commissioner (Appeals). On the contrary, the Jt. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Hon'ble GVAT Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit. The said action of the lower authorities is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Commissioner (Appeals). On the contrary, the Jt. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Hon'ble GVAT Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit. The said action of the lower authorities is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. (vii) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law and on facts in not following all the judgments relied upon by the appellant and not discussing as to how they are not applicable to the case of the appellant.” 5. Learned advocate Ms.Parikh submitted that the assessment order was passed without giving any opportunity to the appellant to meet with the ground of disallowance of Input Tax Credit in relation to M/s.H.L. Enterprise whose registration number was cancelled ab initio by the department and one Staline Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. whose credit was mismatched. It was submitted that the appellant was never put to any notice about such facts during the course of assessment proceedings and in view of the same, addition made in the assessment order are not sustainable on merits. 5.1 It was submitted that financial condition of the appellant is not good. It was submitted that the pre-deposit amount determined by the Tribunal of Rs.96,88,278/- which is equal to 20% of the tax demanded of Rs.04,84,41,389/- would not be paid by the appellant. 5.2 It was submitted that the appellant has very good prima facie case on merits as the credit avail by the appellant for ab initio cancellation of registration could not have been reversed raising demand by the Assessing Officer. 5.3 It was further submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to pay Rs.10.00 lakh to show bona fide by way of pre-deposit instead of Rs.96,88,278/- considering the financial condition of the appellant. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Chintan Dave has placed on record the compilation containing the assessment proceedings. It was pointed out from the said compilation that representative of the appellant had remained present on 22nd March, 2018 before the Assessing Officer and he was informed about ab initio cancelled registration of the supplier and was asked to place on record the evidence for movement of goods and transactions but the same was not provided and thereafter the assessment order was passed on 23rd March, 2018. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellant was put to notice for cancellation of ab initio registration of H.L. Enterprise by the Assessing Officer, however no documents were provided by the appellant and accordingly the assessment order was passed. 7. Be that as it may. We are concerned with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, whereby Second Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed on the ground of non-payment of pre- deposit amount at the rate of 20% of the tax amount. 8. Considering the audited balance-sheet of the appellant for the year ended on 31st March, 2018 wherein cash balance is shown at Rs.31,961.60 and there being no fixed assets available with the appellant, interest of justice would be meet if the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.10.00 lakh within a period of four weeks from today. 8.1 On condition of deposit of Rs.10.00 lakh within four weeks, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the first appellate authority are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority to consider the same on merits. 9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.