Pre-deposit orders in service tax appeals will not be disturbed when statutory hardship factors are considered and waiver is substantially granted.

Interference with a service tax pre-deposit order was declined where the appellate authority had applied the statutory criteria, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, financial burden and hardship, and had already granted substantial waiver by limiting the deposit. The writ court held that the petitioner's challenge to the very applicability of service tax was a for determination in the pending appeals, not in writ jurisdiction. No undue hardship warranting interference was shown, so the pre-deposit condition was upheld and the appeals were left to be decided on merits after compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pre-deposit order directing payment of a reduced amount as a condition for hearing the service tax appeals called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge was to the appellate authority's order requiring a pre-deposit under the statutory scheme applicable to service tax appeals. The Court noted that the authority had considered the relevant factors, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, financial burden, and hardship, and had already granted substantial waiver by restricting the deposit to a limited amount. The petitioner's grievance on the very applicability of service tax was held to be a matter for decision by the appellate authority in the pending appeals, not for determination in the writ petitions. In the circumstances, no case of undue hardship warranting interference was made out.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit order was upheld and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed, but time was granted to comply with the pre-deposit condition, after which the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeals on merits within a fixed period.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an appellate pre-deposit order is unwarranted where the authority has considered the statutory factors and granted substantial waiver, and the dispute on tax liability is left for decision in the pending appeal.

---