Writ petition over pre-deposit for statutory appeal revival bid fails as financial incapacity was already considered earlier The dominant issue was whether a writ petition/application was maintainable to revive an earlier order when the petitioner claimed inability to comply ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Writ petition over pre-deposit for statutory appeal revival bid fails as financial incapacity was already considered earlier
The dominant issue was whether a writ petition/application was maintainable to revive an earlier order when the petitioner claimed inability to comply with the HC-permitted pre-deposit for pursuing the statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The HC held that the grounds now urged, including financial incapacity, had already been considered while passing the prior order relegating the petitioner to the alternative appellate remedy, and no basis was shown to depart from that direction. Consequently, the HC declined to entertain the application and disposed it of, leaving the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.
Application under Section 151 CPC sought revival of the order dated 14 January 2025 by which the writ petition under Article 226 challenging a Show Cause Notice (5 February 2021) and an Order-in-Original (8 August 2024) was disposed of. The impugned Order-in-Original imposed a penalty of Rs. 49,98,57,742/- for alleged illegal and unregistered manufacture of Gutkha ("Aryan Gutkha"), while the petitioner claimed to be "merely an employee" and not the owner/partner. The earlier order held the Order-in-Original to be "clearly an appealable order under Section 35B" of the Central Excise Act, 1944, leaving all pleas and remedies open, and directing that the Appellate Tribunal "shall consider the application for pre-deposit waiver, if made, in accordance with law." In the revival application, the petitioner argued inability to make the statutory pre-deposit due to lack of financial means. The Court noted the matter concerns illegal manufacture/sale of gutkha and large-scale evasion, and held that the grounds urged had "already been considered" while passing the 14 January 2025 order. Having already relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy, the Court declined to entertain revival and reiterated liberty to seek waiver of pre-deposit before the Appellate Tribunal "in accordance with law."
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI OCR ✕
of 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
