- (1.) The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal fixing pre-deposit as a condition precedent to hearing of the appeal and thereafter dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-deposit of such sum. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned the pre-deposit directed by the Tribunal was 50% of the penalty, which is Rs. 5,00,000/-.
(2.) The petitioner urges two points for reducing or dispensing with this pre-deposit. First is the prima facie case. He says that the Revenue had no evidence at all to prove the case against him. The first adjudicating authority had acted on very unreliable evidence. The second is the case of financial hardship. He says that he is a goldsmith and does not have the financial resources to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/-. Some case has been made out on both points. I am afraid that the Tribunal has not evaluated this case, before fixation of pre-deposit. In my opinion, a direction upon the writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- has indeed caused hardship. For his inability to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/-, the appeal has been dismissed.
(3.) I am constrained to note that although this writ application was filed in 2006, no step was taken to prosecute this writ application upto this period. However, when this writ application appeared for hearing, I directed notice to be issued upon the Ministry of Law & Justice, Kolkata. I have been shown a notice dated 30th March, 2010 where notice of hearing of this matter has been issued by the Advocate on record for the petitioner upon the said Ministry. I am afraid that the Ministry of Law is also as careless as the petitioner. None appears to represent the respondents. Neither have the respondents filed any affidavit.;