Statutory appellate remedy and pre-deposit conditions can justify relegation from writ jurisdiction, with parity applied in connected matters.

Where a tax statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, the writ court may decline to examine the assessment challenge on merits and relegate the assessee to that statutory forum. The existence of a pre-deposit condition does not bar the appeal; rather, the appeal may be entertained subject to compliance with the prescribed deposit requirement. On the same facts, the principle of parity supports extending identical relief in a connected matter where no distinguishing circumstances exist. The operative effect was that writ relief was not granted, but the assessee was permitted to pursue the appeal on conditional deposit terms, with the companion appeal disposed of similarly.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee could be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 despite the challenge to the assessment orders in writ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the requirement of pre-deposit could be treated as a bar to availing the statutory appeal; (iii) whether the same relief could be granted in the connected appeal on the principle of parity.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 despite the challenge to the assessment orders in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appellate remedy created by the statute is ordinarily to be pursued in tax matters, and the availability of such remedy justified directing the assessee to the statutory forum instead of entertaining the writ challenge on merits. The Court treated the matter as fact-specific and did not lay down any general rule against writ intervention.

Conclusion: The assessee was permitted to avail the statutory appeal under Section 62.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirement of pre-deposit could be treated as a bar to availing the statutory appeal.

Analysis: The statutory right of appeal can validly be conditioned by a pre-deposit requirement, and the existence of such a condition does not by itself justify bypassing the appellate remedy. The Court, however, granted limited indulgence by allowing the appeal to be filed on compliance with the stipulated deposit.

Conclusion: The appeal was made contingent upon deposit of 30% of the disputed tax with interest as directed.

Issue (iii): Whether the same relief could be granted in the connected appeal on the principle of parity.

Analysis: The connected matter involved substantially similar facts and issues, and the principle that like cases should be treated alike applied. In the absence of distinguishing circumstances, identical relief was extended in the companion appeal.

Conclusion: The connected appeal was disposed of on the same terms as the companion matter.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was not granted writ relief on merits, but was given access to the statutory appellate remedy with a conditional deposit requirement, and the same treatment was extended to the connected appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, the writ court may relegate the assessee to that remedy and condition access to appeal on compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

---