Pre-deposit conditions must be reasoned and proportionate to proven financial hardship; excessive cash deposit can be modified.

A pre-deposit condition imposed in stay or waiver proceedings must be supported by reasons and remain proportionate to the applicant's accepted financial hardship. Where the Tribunal acknowledges financial stringency but fixes a substantial cash deposit without explaining why that quantum is justified on the pleaded facts, the condition may be modified to avoid undue hardship while protecting revenue interests. The court accordingly reduced the cash component, substituted part of the deposit with security, and preserved the appeal for hearing on merits upon compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's pre-deposit condition warranted interference and modification in view of the petitioner's pleaded financial hardship and the absence of supporting reasons.

Analysis: The Tribunal had accepted the plea of financial hardship, but it fixed a substantial cash deposit without recording reasons showing why that quantum was justified on the pleaded facts. Where financial stringency is accepted, the condition imposed under the stay and waiver jurisdiction must bear a rational relationship to that hardship and must be supported by reasons. The Court interfered to prevent undue hardship while safeguarding the revenue's interest.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit condition was modified. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 in cash and furnish security for Rs. 1,05,000, and compliance was to be treated as sufficient for hearing the appeal on merits.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of reducing the pre-deposit burden and substituting a part cash deposit with security, while preserving the Tribunal's hearing of the appeal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit condition imposed while granting stay or waiver must be supported by reasons and must be proportionate to the accepted plea of financial hardship.

---