Tribunal pre-deposit discretion upheld where full deposit rested on prima facie merits and no substantial question of law arose.

The Gujarat High Court upheld the Tribunal's direction requiring full pre-deposit of the tax demand, holding that the extent of pre-deposit lies within the Tribunal's discretion and must be assessed on the facts and prima facie merits of the record. The demand had arisen from denial of concessional treatment under the Central Sales Tax regime because the purchasing dealers' registrations had been cancelled and the statutory forms were not produced even after a long delay. On those facts, the full-deposit direction was neither arbitrary nor legally infirm, and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit of 100% of the tax demand and whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Analysis: The challenge was against the Tribunal's order under Section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 directing full pre-deposit. The disputed demand arose from denial of concessional treatment under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act because the purchasing dealers' registrations had been cancelled and statutory forms were not produced even after a long lapse of time. The extent of pre-deposit lies within the Tribunal's discretion, to be exercised on the facts of each case and on the prima facie merits emerging from the record. On the facts noted by the Tribunal, the direction to deposit the full amount could not be said to be arbitrary or legally infirm, and no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The direction for 100% pre-deposit was upheld and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with a Tribunal's discretionary pre-deposit order is not warranted where the order is based on relevant facts and prima facie assessment, unless a substantial question of law is shown to arise.

---