https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759109 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. en-us Mon, 16 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Sep 2024 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759109 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. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 16 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759109