Writ jurisdiction and statutory pre-deposit: assessment challenge rejected where an effective appeal remedy existed.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised to interfere with an assessment order when an effective statutory appeal is available. An allegation that an earlier court order was not complied with did not justify bypassing the appellate remedy. The statutory pre-deposit requirement of 25% of the disputed tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was treated as mandatory, and the court declined to dilute or dispense with it in writ proceedings. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable, and the request to direct the appellate authority to entertain the appeal without the prescribed pre-deposit was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal, and whether the appellate authority could be directed to entertain the appeal without the statutory pre-deposit.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and is not ordinarily exercised to interfere with an assessment order when an effective statutory appeal remedy is available. The fact that the assessee alleged non-compliance with an earlier court order did not by itself justify bypassing the appellate process. The statutory requirement of paying 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for appeal under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held to be mandatory, and the Court declined to rewrite that requirement in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the prayer to dispense with the statutory pre-deposit was rejected.

---