Pre-deposit waiver turns on inability to pay; claimed non-taxability does not by itself justify dispensation in appeal.

The power to waive pre-deposit of tax pending appeal was confined to cases where the authority was satisfied that the dealer was unable to pay. A claim that the disputed turnover was not taxable on merits did not, by itself, justify waiver. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not established inability to pay was treated as a finding of fact, and the High Court would not reappreciate that conclusion in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The pre-deposit challenge therefore failed, and the statutory payment requirement could not be displaced merely because the assessee expected success in appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority could waive the pre-deposit of tax on the ground that the disputed turnover was claimed to be not taxable, and whether the High Court could interfere with the finding that the assessee was not unable to pay tax.

Analysis: The power under the relevant provision to waive tax pending appeal was confined to cases where the authority was satisfied that the dealer was unable to pay the tax. A claimed non-liability on merits did not, by itself, enlarge that jurisdiction. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not established inability to pay was a finding of fact. In writ jurisdiction, that factual conclusion could not be reappreciated or substituted, and the statutory scheme could not be altered to dispense with payment merely because the assessee expected success on the merits of the appeal.

Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-deposit order failed. The waiver was not available on the ground of alleged non-taxability, and the factual finding regarding inability to pay was not open to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---