Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is registered as a Dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. On May 31, 2001, an additional demand of Rs. 7,04,243/- was created. The petitioner filed an appeal. Alongwith the petition of appeal, an application for waiver of pre-deposit was made. The Tribunal after consideration of the matter found that the petitioners gross turn-over for the year 2000-2001 was Rs. 4.09 crores. It had a balance of Rs. 18 lacs in the current account. Thus, it was held that the petitioner was in a position to pay the tax. Consequently, the application for waiver of pre-deposit was rejected, A copy of the order dated November 13, 2001 has been produced as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition. 2. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a review petition. This was dismissed vide order dated February 5, 2002. A copy of the order is at Annexure P-9 with the writ petition. 3. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a review petition. This was dismissed vide order dated February 5, 2002. A copy of the order is at Annexure P-9 with the writ petition. 4. The petitioner challenges the afore-mentioned two orders and prays that these be quashed. 5. We have hear Mr. Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the petitioner was in a position to pay. The counsel further submits that the requirement of pre-deposit shall not be applicable in a case where the Revisional Authority has created an additional demand by passing an order under Section 40(2) of the Act. 6. Nothing has been produced on record to show that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner has Rs. 18 lacs in the current account is wrong. Equally, it has not been disputed that the petitioners gross turn-over was Rs. 4.09 crores for the year 2000-2001. Mr. Dogra submits that a perusal of the balance sheet would show that the petitioner had suffered a loss of Rs. 2 lacs during the year 2000-2001. However, on examination of the document, we find that the petitioner had claimed depreciation of Rs. 4,92,472/-. Thus, it was only a method of creating a notional loss. In fact, the document does not show that there was no money with the petitioner. 2 lacs during the year 2000-2001. However, on examination of the document, we find that the petitioner had claimed depreciation of Rs. 4,92,472/-. Thus, it was only a method of creating a notional loss. In fact, the document does not show that there was no money with the petitioner. Similar is the position for the earlier year viz. 1999-2000. Thus, on the basis of these documents, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not in a position to pay. 7. Mr. Dogra contends that the condition of pre-deposit is not applicable in case of an appeal against the order passed by the Revisional Authority. 8. The contention is misconceived. Section 39(5) clearly postulates that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is filed within 60 days from the date of the order appealed against and the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the amount of tax assessed and the penalty and interest, if any, recoverable from the person has been paid". The provision is comprehensive. It provides for the deposit in case of an appeal against any order. It does not exclude an order passed by the Revisional Authority in the exercise of suo-motu jurisdiction. 9. Mr. Dogra submits that in the proviso the expression used is tax assessed. Thus, an order passed by the Revisional Authority cannot be said to fall within the ambit of Section 39(5). Even this contention is misconceived. When a Revisional Authority passes an order, it assesses the liability of the dealer with regard to the payment of tax. The demand is for the tax assessed. 10. Mr. Dogra submits that the documents proved before the Tribunal have not been considered. 11. We have perused these documents. These do not show that the petitioner was not in a position to pay on the crucial date. 12. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, consequently dismissed in limine.