Writ jurisdiction and appellate remedy under VAT law: court protected limitation, merits hearing, and interim recovery relief.

Where an appellate remedy exists under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not entertained for non-exhaustion of that remedy, but the Court recognised the hardship caused by the pre-deposit requirement. It directed the petitioner to approach the Special Commissioner within the stipulated time, treated the appeal or objections as filed within limitation, required them to be heard on merits, and restrained insistence on pre-deposit and coercive recovery during pursuit of the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised despite the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, and whether the petitioner should be protected from the pre-deposit condition and coercive recovery while pursuing such remedy.

Analysis: The petition was not entertained on the ground of non-exhaustion of appellate remedies, but the Court took note of the hardship that immediate invocation of the appellate route would occasion because of the pre-deposit requirement. The Court therefore permitted the petitioner to approach the Special Commissioner within the stated time, directed that the appeal or objections be treated as within limitation and heard on merits, and restrained insistence on the pre-deposit condition and coercive recovery.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with directions protecting the petitioner's appellate remedy and interim recovery concerns.

---