Case Law Details
Ram Kishan Bairwa Vs Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court tackled the issue of whether the mandatory pre-deposit condition under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act (CEA) can be waived in writ jurisdiction. The case, Ram Kishan Bairwa Vs Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others, sheds light on crucial aspects of appellate procedure and judicial discretion.
Introduction: The petitioner, Ram Kishan Bairwa, approached the Allahabad High Court challenging an order passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ghaziabad, dated December 30, 2022. The petitioner sought relief from the pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal before the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, under Section 35F of the CEA. However, the High Court delved into the legality of such a waiver in the writ jurisdiction.
Detailed Analysis: The High Court emphasized the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy, as the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the CESTAT. The court highlighted that the petitioner’s attempt to circumvent the pre-deposit requirement through the writ petition was untenable. Citing various judgments, including Shri Subhash Jain v. Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax, the court elucidated that the condition of pre-deposit cannot be waived or modified in the writ jurisdiction.
The judgment underscored that judicial discretion exercised by the High Court must align with statutory provisions. The court emphasized that any deviation from the pre-deposit requirement would render the statutory provision meaningless. Notably, the court rejected arguments based on past judgments predating legislative amendments, affirming the current legal stance on pre-deposit conditions.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
