Court denies waiver of pre-deposit for tax appeal by registered dealer, citing financial evidence.

The Court upheld the rejection of the waiver of pre-deposit in the case where the petitioner, a registered dealer, filed an appeal against the Tribunal's decision. The Court found that the petitioner's financial documents did not prove the inability to pay the tax, as evidenced by the gross turnover and current account balance. The Court clarified that the pre-deposit requirement applies even in appeals against orders by the revisional authority, dismissing the petitioner's arguments and upholding the rejection of the waiver of pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of application for waiver of pre-deposit.
2. Review petition challenging the rejection of waiver of pre-deposit.
3. Interpretation of provisions regarding pre-deposit in case of appeal against order by revisional authority.
4. Consideration of financial documents to determine the petitioner's ability to pay tax.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, filed an appeal against the Tribunal's rejection of the application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal found the petitioner's gross turnover for 2000-2001 to be Rs. 4.09 crores with a balance of Rs. 18 lacs in the current account, concluding the petitioner's ability to pay the tax. The petitioner contended that the pre-deposit requirement should not apply when the revisional authority creates an additional demand. The Court noted no evidence disputing the Tribunal's findings on the petitioner's financial status.

2. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision, the petitioner filed a review petition, which was subsequently dismissed. The petitioner challenged both orders, seeking their quashing. The counsel argued that the petitioner's claimed loss was not genuine, as depreciation was considered, indicating the petitioner's financial position was misrepresented. However, the Court found no evidence to support the petitioner's claim of inability to pay the tax.

3. The petitioner contended that the pre-deposit condition should not apply in cases of appeals against orders by the revisional authority. The Court clarified that Section 39(5) mandated the payment of assessed tax, penalty, and interest for entertaining any appeal, including orders by the revisional authority. The contention that revisional authority orders do not fall under this provision was deemed misconceived, as such orders assess the dealer's tax liability.

4. The petitioner argued that the documents presented were not considered by the Tribunal. Upon review, the Court found the documents did not establish the petitioner's inability to pay the tax at the relevant time. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upholding the rejection of the waiver of pre-deposit.

---