Pre-deposit relaxation and partial deposit allowed as appeal showed a strong prima facie case and needed merits review.

Refusal to relax the pre-deposit requirement was held unjustified where the appeal still required merits examination and the petitioner showed a strong prima facie case. The Court balanced the interests of justice by setting aside the refusal to waive full pre-deposit and allowing the appeal to be entertained on partial deposit. It directed admission of the appeal upon deposit of 50% of the disputed demand within four weeks, followed by expeditious hearing before the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing relaxation of the requirement of pre-deposit for admission of the appeal was justified, and what interim relief should be granted.

Analysis: The Court found that the impugned order rejecting relaxation of pre-deposit was not justified in the circumstances. The matter was still required to be examined by the appellate authority on merits, and the Court declined to express any view on the merits beyond noting that the petitioner had a good prima facie case. Balancing the interests of justice, the Court considered it appropriate to interfere with the refusal of waiver and to permit the appeal to be entertained on partial deposit.

Conclusion: The refusal to relax the pre-deposit requirement was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be admitted upon deposit of 50% of the disputed demand within four weeks, after which it was to be heard expeditiously.

---