Writ jurisdiction and pre-deposit requirements under VAT law: delayed challenge to tax demand did not justify interference.

Writ interference under Articles 226 and 227 was declined against orders requiring a 25% pre-deposit under Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 before entertaining the statutory challenge to the tax demand. The Court noted the belated approach to writ remedy, the absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay, and that liability had been fastened on detected suppressed purchase turnover, with tax, penalty, and interest determined on that basis. In these circumstances, it found no sufficient ground to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and left the pre-deposit requirement undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted under writ jurisdiction against the orders requiring pre-deposit and declining to entertain the statutory challenge to the tax demand.

Analysis: The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the order directing deposit of 25% of the demand under Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the appellate order affirming that requirement. The Court noted the belated approach to the writ remedy, the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the fact that liability had been fastened on the basis of detected suppressed purchase turnover, resulting in determination of taxable turnover, tax, penalty, and interest. The Court found no sufficient ground to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the challenge to the pre-deposit orders failed.

---