VAT appeal pre-deposit requirement upheld; writ court declined to waive statutory tax payment and security condition on hardship grounds.

Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 makes payment of admitted tax and interest, together with a bank guarantee or adequate security, a condition precedent for entertaining a VAT appeal. The High Court treated this pre-deposit and security requirement as a valid statutory mandate and noted that the appellate authority has no discretion to waive it merely on a plea of financial hardship. On the facts presented, the material relating to turnover and tax payments did not establish an inability to furnish security, and the authorities cited by the petitioner were regarded as fact-specific. Writ relief to bypass compliance was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should direct the appellate authority to entertain the petitioner's VAT appeal without insisting on the statutory pre-deposit or security requirement on the ground of financial hardship.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 requires an appeal to be entertained only after payment of admitted tax and interest and furnishing of a bank guarantee or adequate security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. The Court relied on the governing principle that such a pre-deposit condition is a valid legislative requirement and that the appellate authority has no discretion to waive it. The petitioner's plea of financial hardship was examined on the facts placed before the Court, including the material relating to turnover and tax payments, but the Court found it unsafe to conclude that the petitioner was incapable of furnishing the requisite security. The authorities cited by the petitioner were held to be fact-specific and not sufficient to displace the statutory mandate on the record presented.

Conclusion: The request to bypass the statutory pre-deposit and security requirement was rejected. The writ petition failed, and the petitioner was left to avail remedies only in accordance with Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the relevant Rules.

Final Conclusion: The statutory pre-deposit regime under the VAT law was upheld on the facts, and no writ relief was granted to exempt the petitioner from compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute makes furnishing of tax payment and security a condition precedent for entertainment of an appeal, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to waive that condition absent a clear factual basis establishing inability to comply.

---