Pre-deposit waiver in debatable tax disputes may be allowed where insistence would obstruct hearing the appeal on merits.

Where the requirement of pre-deposit would impede hearing of a debatable tax dispute, the HC held that complete waiver may be justified so the substantive appeal can be decided on merits. The Court noted that it would not examine prima facie merits in a way that could prejudice the appeal before the Tribunal, and it took account of an earlier stay for an overlapping period. On those facts, the further insistence on deposit of the disputed amount with proportionate interest was unjustified. The order directing pre-deposit was therefore set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal without requiring any pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to full waiver of pre-deposit of the disputed amount and interest pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The appeal concerned only the requirement of pre-deposit as a condition precedent for hearing the substantive appeal. The controversy was found to be debatable, and the Court declined to examine the prima facie merits so as not to prejudice the appeal before the Tribunal. It also noted that an earlier demand for an overlapping period had already been stayed by the Tribunal, and on those facts the insistence on a further pre-deposit was considered unjustified.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to full waiver of pre-deposit and the Tribunal ought not to have directed deposit of the disputed sum with proportionate interest.

Final Conclusion: The order insisting on pre-deposit was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal on merits without requiring any pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the issue is debatable and insisting on pre-deposit would impede hearing of the appeal, the appellate forum may grant complete waiver of pre-deposit so that the substantive appeal is decided on merits.

---