Pre-deposit hardship plea considered where tribunal reduced the deposit amount and the writ challenge failed on merits.

A challenge to a tribunal's pre-deposit direction failed where the reduced deposit amount showed that the plea of hardship had already been considered. The High Court found no unreasonableness or failure to consider the material placed before the Tribunal, and therefore declined interference on merits. Time was, however, granted to make the pre-deposit, and the appeal was protected to remain pending during that period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit was liable to be interfered with on the ground that it had not considered the petitioner's plea of hardship.

Analysis: The amount directed to be deposited was substantially reduced by the Tribunal from the total demand and penalty, which showed that the plea of hardship had been taken into account. The order did not disclose any unreasonableness or failure to consider the material placed before the Tribunal. The High Court also granted time to make the pre-deposit and protected the appeal during that period.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on merits and was dismissed. The petitioner was granted three months to make the pre-deposit directed by the Tribunal, with the appeal to remain pending in the meanwhile.

---