Pre-deposit requirement under sales tax law applies to appeals from revisional orders, and inability to pay must be proved with evidence.

Section 39(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act was treated as a comprehensive pre-deposit requirement applying to appeals against any order, including an order passed by the revisional authority in suo motu jurisdiction. The expression "tax assessed" was read broadly to cover liability determined by revision, so the appeal could not bypass deposit on that ground. On the facts, the petitioner failed to prove financial incapacity: the finding of substantial turnover and funds in the current account stood unrebutted, and the balance-sheet did not show inability to pay because the claimed loss was only notional depreciation. The challenge to the Tribunal's order was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition of pre-deposit under Section 39(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 applied to an appeal arising from an order passed by the revisional authority, and whether the petitioner had shown inability to make the deposit.

Analysis: Section 39(5) was held to be comprehensive and to govern an appeal against any order, including one passed by the revisional authority in suo motu jurisdiction. The expression "tax assessed" was construed to include liability determined by the revisional authority. On facts, the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner had substantial turnover and funds in its current account was not shown to be wrong. The balance-sheet material did not establish incapacity to pay, since the claimed loss was treated as a notional loss arising from depreciation and did not show absence of funds.

Conclusion: The requirement of pre-deposit applied, and the petitioner failed to establish inability to pay. The challenge to the Tribunal's order was rejected.

---