Altafhusen Mayuddin Khatri Vs Union of India & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Pre-Deposit is must, to file appeal and cannot be frustrated for Assessee’s financial hardship: SC
Summary: In the case of Altafhusen Mayuddin Khatri v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India upheld that financial hardship cannot be a valid reason to waive or reduce the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing an appeal. The petitioner, who faced a demand of over ₹400 crores, argued that he was unable to pay the statutory pre-deposit of ₹10 crores, which is required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Court, however, dismissed his plea, reinforcing the principle that the pre-deposit is a mandatory condition intended to protect government revenue. The Court observed that the provisions for pre-deposit, such as those in Sections 35B and 35F, are drafted in mandatory terms and do not grant discretion to waive the payment based on an appellant’s financial situation. The judgment highlighted the legislative intent behind these provisions: to balance the taxpayer’s right to appeal with the need to prevent frivolous appeals and secure revenue. The Supreme Court found no legal error in the Gujarat High Court’s earlier decision, which had similarly rejected the petitioner’s argument. This ruling serves as a clear precedent, confirming that the mandatory pre-deposit is an essential prerequisite for accessing appellate remedies, and financial incapacity is not a sufficient ground to bypass it.
