Pre-deposit in sales tax appeals remains mandatory, with writ interference limited to jurisdictional error or perversity.

In sales tax and VAT appeals, pre-deposit of the disputed amount or admitted tax is a statutory condition for maintaining the appeal, subject only to limited waiver or reduction on terms that protect revenue. Financial hardship alone is not a decisive basis for relief under this framework, unlike customs or excise regimes where undue hardship is expressly relevant. Writ interference is available only if the order is jurisdictionally flawed or perverse; otherwise the court will not reassess the merits of the deposit direction. On the facts, no such perversity was shown, so the pre-deposit order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with the order directing pre-deposit in a sales tax dispute, and whether financial hardship or the merits of the appeal justified waiver or reduction of the deposit.

Analysis: The governing sales tax and VAT provisions required the amount in dispute, or the admitted tax, to be deposited as a condition for maintaining the appeal, with limited discretion to waive or reduce the deposit on terms that safeguard revenue. The court distinguished this regime from customs and excise statutes, where undue hardship is an express consideration, and held that in sales tax matters the relevant enquiry centres on the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and protection of public interest. Financial hardship is not by itself a decisive ground under the sales tax framework, and writ interference is unwarranted unless the impugned order is jurisdictionally flawed or perverse. On the facts, the challenge required examination of the merits and did not disclose such perversity.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit direction was sustained and no interference was called for.

---