Statutory Pre-Deposit cannot be waived in writ jurisdiction; appeals require mandatory deposit absent extraordinary circumstances.

Challenge to an order confirming demand for wrongful availment of input tax credit under Section 74 is not maintainable in writ proceedings where the order records findings of misstatement, suppression and fake invoices and no perversity or mala fide is shown; certiorari will not reappraise reasoned tax findings. The statutory pre-deposit requirement for preferring the statutory appeal cannot be waived in writ jurisdiction absent extraordinary circumstances, and the petitioner must comply with the pre-deposit condition before pursuing the appellate remedy; the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order dated 30.09.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act confirming demand for wrongful availment of input tax credit is amenable to writ jurisdiction; (ii) Whether pre-deposit mandated for preferring the statutory appeal can be waived and the petitioner permitted to file appeal without the mandatory pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned demand order under Section 74 (wrongful availment of input tax credit) is liable to be quashed in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The impugned order records reasons including findings of misstatement and suppression connected with submission of fake invoices and absence of e-way bills. In exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, adequacy and sufficiency of reasons are not to be re-examined unless reasons are perverse or tainted by mala fides. No such perversity or mala fide is shown on the record.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order dated 30.09.2025 under Section 74 is rejected; the writ does not succeed on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory pre-deposit for filing the appeal may be dispensed with and the appeal be entertained without the mandatory pre-deposit.

Analysis: The requirement of pre-deposit is statutory. No extraordinary circumstance has been demonstrated that would justify dispensing with the statutory pre-deposit obligation or directing reduced deposit/security. The petitioner's interim offer to furnish security does not suffice to override the statutory requirement in the absence of exceptional justification.

Conclusion: Prayer to waive or dispense with the mandatory pre-deposit is refused; the petitioner is not permitted to file the statutory appeal without complying with the pre-deposit requirement.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed; the impugned tax demand remains subject to the statutory appellate remedy which requires compliance with the pre-deposit condition.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory pre-deposit requirement for preferring an appeal under the CGST framework cannot be waived in writ jurisdiction absent demonstration of extraordinary circumstances, and certiorari will not be granted to reappraise reasoned tax orders unless shown to be perverse or mala fide.

---