Waiver of pre-deposit: limited deposit upheld where hardship was not shown and revenue interest was protected.

A waiver of pre-deposit was considered by balancing financial hardship against the interest of revenue, and a limited deposit of 10% of the additional demand with surety for the balance was found reasonable. At the stage of deciding waiver, the merits of the assessment are not to be examined in depth, and the relevant considerations are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. As no undue financial hardship or unreasonableness in the condition was shown, the deposit requirement was upheld and no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction to deposit 10% of the additional demand as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal required interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The application for waiver of pre-deposit was considered on the basis of financial hardship, while keeping in view the interest of revenue. The authorities exercised discretion by directing deposit of only 10% of the additional demand and furnishing of surety for the balance. At the stage of considering waiver of pre-deposit, the merits of the assessment are not to be examined in depth. The order reflected consideration of the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, and the amount directed to be deposited was not shown to cause undue financial hardship.

Conclusion: The condition of depositing 10% of the additional demand was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings seeking waiver of pre-deposit, the Court will not go into the merits of the appeal and will interfere only where the condition imposed causes undue financial hardship or is otherwise unreasonable; a limited deposit imposed after balancing revenue interest and hardship will ordinarily stand.

---