Statutory appeal with pre-deposit bars writ relief where no exceptional ground justifies bypassing the tax remedy

Where a taxing statute provides an appellate remedy subject to a mandatory pre-deposit, writ relief under article 226 will ordinarily not be entertained. The text explains that the petitioners had already invoked the statutory appeals, but those appeals were not admitted because the required deposit of 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax was not made. As no exceptional ground such as lack of jurisdiction, invalid law, or breach of fundamental rights was shown, the High Court treated the statutory scheme as the proper route and refused to permit bypass of the appeal process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the petitioners' failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under the second proviso to section 19(1) of the Act.

Analysis: The petitioners had already invoked the appellate remedy against the assessment orders, but the appeals were not entertained because the required deposit of 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax had not been made. The writ jurisdiction under article 226 is discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised where an adequate statutory remedy exists. In revenue matters, especially where the statute itself provides an appeal subject to a pre-deposit condition, the High Court will refuse to permit a party to bypass the statutory procedure. The case did not disclose any exceptional circumstance such as want of jurisdiction, invalid law, or infringement of fundamental rights that would justify interference under article 226. Since the petitioners were pursuing the statutory remedy and the appeals had failed for non-compliance with the statutory condition, entertaining the writ petitions would amount to allowing parallel proceedings and short-circuiting the scheme of the Act.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were left undisturbed and the statutory process under the taxing enactment was held to prevail over the writ challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy subject to a statutory pre-deposit, the High Court will ordinarily refuse writ relief under article 226 unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing the statutory scheme.

---