Pre-deposit waiver discretion: High Court upheld refusal where no arbitrariness was shown and revenue protection weighed heavily.

The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 with a reasoned Tribunal order refusing to dispense with pre-deposit for an appeal against a penalty order. It held that waiver of pre-deposit is a discretionary matter requiring a balance between hardship to the applicant and protection of revenue, and that interference is justified only if the discretion is arbitrary or contrary to law. On the facts recorded, including prima facie involvement in clandestine banking activities and related foreign dealings, the plea of inability to deposit was insufficient. The contention on lack of personal hearing was treated as a factual issue for the appeal, and no writ interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Tribunal's refusal to dispense with pre-deposit for hearing the appeal against a penalty order.

Analysis: The power to dispense with pre-deposit is discretionary and must balance hardship to the applicant against protection of the revenue. On the record, the petitioner had been found to have been involved in clandestine banking activities and to have financial dealings connected with persons outside India. The plea of inability to deposit was not sufficient to persuade the Court that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion improperly. The contention regarding want of personal hearing was treated as a factual matter for the appeal, and the material on record supported the Tribunal's prima facie view.

Conclusion: The refusal to waive pre-deposit was upheld and no interference was warranted under Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference under Article 226 is not justified with a reasoned discretionary order refusing waiver of pre-deposit unless the discretion is shown to be arbitrary or contrary to law, particularly where revenue protection is a relevant consideration.

---