Pre-deposit condition for appeal hearing upheld where Tribunal balanced hardship, arguable case, and revenue protection.

The Tribunal's direction requiring a 15% pre-deposit of the penalty and security for the remaining amount as a condition for hearing the appeal was upheld as a reasonable balance between the appellants' hardship and the revenue's interest. The petitioner's request for complete waiver was rejected because the Tribunal found an arguable case but no basis for full exemption. The High Court held that the pre-deposit order was justified and that no interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted. The challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioner to pre-deposit 15% of the penalty amount and furnish security for the balance as a condition for hearing the appeal, and whether interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the pre-deposit direction as unreasonable and sought complete waiver. The Tribunal had found that the appellants had an arguable case and would suffer hardship if waiver was denied, but complete waiver was not made out. Balancing the circumstances with the interests of revenue, the Tribunal directed deposit of 15% of the penalty and security for the remaining 85%. The High Court held that the direction was reasonable and justified and did not call for interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-deposit order failed and the writ petition was dismissed.

---