Pre-deposit modification requests require proper affidavit support, and further waiver may be refused when non-compliance continues.
A second request to further modify a pre-deposit order was treated as not maintainable because it was filed without a supporting affidavit, the absence of verification being a defect in the application. On merits, further waiver or enlargement of the pre-deposit relief was refused because the order had already been modified once on financial hardship, no sufficient ground for additional relief was shown, and the modified pre-deposit condition remained unfulfilled; the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance, with liberty to seek restoration upon compliance.
Issues: (i) whether the second miscellaneous application seeking further modification of the pre-deposit order was maintainable in the absence of a supporting affidavit; (ii) whether further waiver or modification of the pre-deposit condition was justified on the merits so as to prevent dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance.
Issue (i): whether the second miscellaneous application seeking further modification of the pre-deposit order was maintainable in the absence of a supporting affidavit.
Analysis: The application was filed without any affidavit on behalf of the appellant company. The absence of verification was treated as a defect going to the maintainability of the request for modification.
Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was held to be not maintainable.
Issue (ii): whether further waiver or modification of the pre-deposit condition was justified on the merits so as to prevent dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance.
Analysis: The pre-deposit direction had already been modified earlier on the basis of financial hardship. The case was found to be covered against the appellant by the ratio of the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the Revenue, and no sufficient ground was found for further enlargement of relief. Non-compliance with the modified pre-deposit order continued.
Conclusion: Further modification or waiver was refused and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance.
Final Conclusion: The order of pre-deposit remained operative, the request for additional relief was declined, and the appeal stood dismissed, with liberty to seek restoration upon compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: A request for modification of a pre-deposit order must be properly supported and, where the appellant does not comply with the pre-deposit condition, dismissal of the appeal is warranted.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
