Pre-deposit waiver principles upheld where the Tribunal balanced hardship against revenue interest and required security for the balance.

Pre-deposit conditions for hearing an appeal were sustained where the Tribunal balanced the appellants' arguable case and claimed hardship against the revenue's interest, and found that complete waiver was not justified. It directed deposit of 15% of the penalty amount and security for the balance, treating that course as a reasonable application of the governing principles on waiver and pre-deposit. The writ court upheld the condition on the facts, and distinguished the cited Supreme Court decision as fact-specific and not supporting the petitioner's challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit of 15% of the penalty amount and furnishing of security for the balance as a condition for hearing the appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded that the appellants had an arguable case and would suffer hardship if waiver was denied, but complete waiver was not warranted. It balanced the hardship pleaded against the interest of revenue and, applying the governing principles on pre-deposit and waiver, directed deposit of only 15% of the penalty with security for the remaining amount. The writ Court found that this approach was reasonable and justified on the facts, and the cited Supreme Court decision did not assist the petitioner because it turned on its own facts.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit condition was upheld and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---