TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High-Stakes Legal Battle: Pre-Deposit Appeal Conditions Upheld, Statutory Mandate Prevails Over Discretionary Challenge Under Article 226</h1> <h3>Lalit Kulthia & Anr. Versus The Commissioner of Customs Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – III & Ors.</h3> Lalit Kulthia & Anr. Versus The Commissioner of Customs Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – III & Ors. - 2025:BHC - OS:7161 - DB The Bombay High Court, in a review petition against its order dated 6 December 2024 disposing of Writ Petition No. 476 of 2024, addressed two main contentions by the Petitioners: (1) that the pre-deposit condition renders the appellate remedy 'onerous and illusory,' and (2) that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court can waive the pre-deposit requirement and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits, relying on Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed & Ors. v. Commissioner of Appeals Customs and Central Excise & Ors. (2023).The Court clarified that the pre-deposit condition was not challenged as unconstitutional and that the statutory right to appeal is not inherent but conditional. It emphasized that the power under Article 226, though expansive, 'should not ordinarily be exercised to sidestep the statutory requirements,' referencing the Supreme Court's binding precedent in Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd. v. Ambuj A. Kasliwal & Ors. (2021), which held that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not defeat mandatory statutory provisions.The Court noted that Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed & Ors. did not consider the Kotak Mahindra Bank precedent and reaffirmed reliance on the coordinate bench decision in Manjit Singh v. Union of India (2023). Finding no sufficient reason to waive the pre-deposit requirement or exercise review jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the review petition without costs.
TaxTMI 