TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order directing 30% pre-deposit in each appeal should be modified or reviewed on the ground of financial hardship.
Analysis: The claim of financial inability was unsupported by any material. The record showed that the appellant firm had been carrying on import business, and no amount was deposited even to show bona fides. The statutory scheme under the second proviso to section 19(1) requires that dispensation of pre-deposit be controlled by conditions safeguarding recovery of penalty. The review power under section 28(2) could be exercised only on settled grounds such as error apparent on the face of the record, fresh evidence despite due diligence, or a similar sufficient ground. No such ground was made out, and the earlier order had already considered the plea of hardship.
Conclusion: The request for modification or review was not maintainable on merits, and the direction for pre-deposit was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeals and the modification application failed, and the conditional pre-deposit order continued to govern the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: A request to modify or review a pre-deposit order cannot succeed on a bare plea of financial hardship unsupported by material, especially where the statutory scheme requires safeguarding recovery and no recognized ground for review is shown.
TaxTMI 
