TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case justifying waiver of pre-deposit of penalty; (ii) Whether the appellants had shown undue or excessive financial hardship warranting exemption from pre-deposit.
Issue (i): Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case justifying waiver of pre-deposit of penalty.
Analysis: The Court held that at the stage of waiver, the merits of the underlying contravention were not to be examined in detail. It accepted the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the Single Judge that the appellants had failed to establish a strong prima facie case for exemption from pre-deposit. The reasons recorded below were found to be cogent and sufficient.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had shown undue or excessive financial hardship warranting exemption from pre-deposit.
Analysis: The Court applied the settled test that hardship must be undue, meaning excessive or out of proportion to the requirement. It found that the affidavits and income-tax returns relied upon by the appellants did not, by themselves, establish such hardship. The prior grant of exemption in earlier matters was held not to control the present case on its facts.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondent.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the concurrent orders refusing waiver of pre-deposit, with the result that the appeals failed at the threshold stage.
Ratio Decidendi: Waiver of pre-deposit is justified only when a strong prima facie case is shown together with proof of undue financial hardship; absent such proof, interference with the order requiring pre-deposit is unwarranted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
