Pre-deposit discretion in service tax appeals upheld where prior discharge of liability was not substantiated.

Interference with a Commissioner (Appeals)' discretionary direction for partial pre-deposit is not warranted where the appeal remains pending, the authority has made only a prima facie assessment, and the taxpayer has not substantiated a claim that the service tax liability was already discharged through the corporate office, vendor, or transporter. The appellate authority was entitled to require deposit of part of the disputed demand pending detailed examination and final quantification. On the material available, no basis was shown to disturb that interlocutory order, so the writ petition failed and the pre-deposit direction remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s interlocutory order directing pre-deposit of a part of the disputed service tax demand as a condition for hearing the appeal.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the pre-deposit direction passed during pendency of the statutory appeal. The petitioner had raised new pleas before the appellate authority that service tax had already been paid by the corporate office, vendor, or transporter, but those assertions were not yet supported by the necessary documents. The appellate authority had taken the view that the matter required detailed examination before final quantification and had exercised its discretion to direct deposit of a part amount under the statutory pre-deposit provision. No material was shown to justify a conclusion that the liability had already been discharged through another source.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit order was upheld and no interference was warranted; the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the appellate authority's discretionary direction for partial pre-deposit remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with a pre-deposit order is unwarranted when the appellate authority has exercised statutory discretion on a prima facie assessment and the petitioner has not substantiated the claim of prior discharge of liability.

---