Court Denies Petition, Directs Petitioner to Follow Appeal Process and Pre-Deposit Requirement in Tax Case.

The HC dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226, directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the CESTAT, Allahabad Bench, and comply with the pre-deposit requirement. The court underscored that the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the statutory obligation of pre-deposit, as High Courts lack discretion to waive it post-amendments.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the availability of alternative efficacious remedy for a petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the discretion of the High Court to waive pre-deposit in extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction.

Alternative Efficacious Remedy:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax. The court noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal, indicating the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy. The court held that since the petitioner had already pursued this remedy, the matter could not be examined afresh in writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the petitioner cannot avoid the liability of pre-deposit by resorting to a writ petition.

Discretion of High Court to Waive Pre-Deposit:
The court referred to various judgments by the Supreme Court and different High Courts, highlighting that the condition of pre-deposit cannot be waived or modified by the High Court in its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that any discretion exercised by the writ Court must be in accordance with the law. It was noted that interference with the pre-deposit amount by the High Courts would render the provision of pre-deposit meaningless. The court cited a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court and a judgment of the Bombay High Court to support the position that the courts do not have the power to waive pre-deposit under the Central Excise Act.

Precedents and Legal Analysis:
The court considered the petitioner's reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court and a coordinate Bench judgment of the High Court to argue for the jurisdiction of the writ Court to reduce or waive pre-deposit in cases of undue hardship. However, the court held that it was bound by the judgments that post-amendments, High Courts cannot exercise discretion in waiving pre-deposit. The court noted that the law regarding pre-deposit has undergone a significant change post-amendments, and High Courts are now precluded from waiving the pre-deposit requirement.

Conclusion:
In light of the above findings, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal filed before the CESTAT, Allahabad Bench and to pay the pre-deposit as required by law. The court emphasized that the petitioner must comply with the legal obligation of pre-deposit and cannot evade it through the writ jurisdiction.

---