Pre-deposit waiver in sales tax appeals will not justify writ interference where statutory remedies remain available.

The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 with the appellate authority's refusal to entertain a sales tax appeal without prior deposit of the assessed tax. The authority had found no sufficient reason to waive the pre-deposit, and the statutory scheme favoured collection of tax despite pendency of appeal, with waiver available only in a deserving case on recorded reasons. The Court also held that the assessee's ordinary remedies under the taxing statute remained available, so writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass the statutory appellate and revisional framework. No interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the appellate authority's refusal to entertain the sales tax appeal without prior deposit of the assessed tax, and whether the availability of remedies under the taxing statute barred writ relief.

Analysis: The appellate authority's refusal to waive pre-deposit was based on an express finding that the tax had been unnecessarily withheld and there was no justification for further deferment. The statutory policy required collection of tax despite pendency of appeal, while discretion to hear the appeal without deposit existed only in a deserving case supported by reasons. The Court also noted that the assessee had ordinary remedies of appeal and revision under the taxing statute and that writ jurisdiction should not be used as a substitute for the remedies created by the statute.

Conclusion: The refusal to dispense with pre-deposit was upheld and no interference under Article 226 was warranted. The petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute provides an appellate framework with a discretionary pre-deposit waiver, the High Court will not ordinarily exercise writ jurisdiction to bypass that mechanism unless a clear case for interference is made out.

---