Pre-deposit on a remanded tax assessment cannot stand when the quantified demand is not yet due and payable.

A pre-deposit could not be ordered against a quantified tax demand when the first appellate authority had remanded the assessment for de novo determination of quantum. The remand meant the liability was still unadjudicated and the alleged demand was not presently due and payable, so directing deposit of 25% of the disputed amount proceeded on an incorrect assumption of enforceable recovery. The court held that the distinction between waiver of pre-deposit and a direction to deposit tax not yet finally determined was material, and the direction was therefore unjustified. The question of law was answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed amount when the first appellate authority had remanded the assessment and no quantified tax demand was then due and payable.

Analysis: The assessment under the Delhi Sales Tax Act had been remanded for de novo consideration on the question of quantum, and the amount originally assessed stood without enforceable recovery in the meantime. In that situation, a direction requiring deposit of a percentage of the disputed demand proceeded on an assumption that a payable demand existed, whereas the legal effect of the remand was that the quantified demand was not then recoverable. The distinction between a waiver of pre-deposit and a direction to deposit tax not yet determined was material.

Conclusion: The direction to deposit 25% of the disputed amount was not justified, and the question of law was answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit cannot be directed on the basis of a quantified demand that is not presently due and payable because the assessment has been remanded and the liability remains unadjudicated.

---