Pre-deposit modification refused where no new hardship was shown and the request would have amounted to review.

A Tribunal declined to modify a stay order requiring pre-deposit, holding that the earlier prima facie view against the assessee remained undisturbed. It found that the authorities cited for waiver or reduction involved different facts and different assessees, and no binding precedent overlooked in the original order was shown. As no fresh claim of financial hardship was made, the request was treated as an impermissible attempt to review the Tribunal's own order. The pre-deposit direction was therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the stay order directing pre-deposit should be modified by waiving or reducing the pre-deposit amount.

Analysis: The Tribunal had earlier considered the demand on merits and had taken a prima facie view against the assessee. The plea for modification was based on decisions involving different facts and different assessees, and no binding authority ignored in the earlier stay order was shown. No fresh claim of financial hardship was made. The Tribunal also held that modifying the stay order would amount to reviewing its own order, which is impermissible.

Conclusion: The request for modification of the stay order was rejected and the pre-deposit direction was maintained.

---