Statutory appeal remedy and secured penalty protection: writ challenge declined, with no further pre-deposit required where security remained valid.

A writ petition challenging detention-related GST penalty was not entertained at the first instance because an alternative statutory appeal remedy was available. The petitioners were directed to approach the appellate authority, and the appeal was to be decided on merits. Since the entire penalty was already secured by bond and bank guarantee, the appellate authority was directed not to insist again on further pre-deposit, so long as the security remained valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging detention-related penalty under the GST enactments should be entertained in view of the statutory appellate remedy, and whether the appellate authority could insist on further pre-deposit when the entire penalty stood secured by bond and bank guarantee.

Analysis: The petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under the GST enactments. The Court accepted the objection to writ maintainability at the first instance and held that the petitioners should approach the appellate authority. It further found that, since the entire penalty had already been covered by bond and bank guarantee, the appellate authority should not again insist on pre-deposit while hearing the appeal.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal within the time granted, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit if the bond and bank guarantee remained valid.

---