Writ jurisdiction can relieve an onerous appeal-security condition where statutory preconditions would make the appellate remedy illusory.

The statutory appeal under Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 required furnishing bank guarantee or adequate security before entertainment of the appeal, and the appellate authority had no implied power to waive that precondition. The High Court nevertheless held that its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remained available where the petitioners showed financial inability to furnish the security and where insisting on the condition would make the appellate remedy illusory. On those facts, the Court treated the demand for an irrevocable bank guarantee or surety bond as unduly onerous and directed the appeals to be heard on merits without enforcing the precondition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority under Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could waive the requirement of furnishing bank guarantee or adequate security for entertaining the appeal, and whether the High Court could, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, direct the appeal to be heard on merits without insisting upon that precondition.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the appellant to furnish bank guarantee or adequate security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority before the appeal could be entertained. The appellate authority itself had no implied power to dispense with that condition. However, the High Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not excluded, especially where the material placed on record showed that the petitioners were financially unable to furnish the security and that insistence on the condition would render the remedy illusory. The Court also treated the challenged insistence on irrevocable bank guarantee or surety bond as unduly onerous in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The appellate authority had no power to waive the statutory condition, but the High Court could direct the appeals to be heard without insisting on the precondition, and relief was granted to the petitioners by remitting the appeals for decision on merits.

---