Case Law Details
Kantilal Bhaguji Mohite Vs Commissioner (Supreme Court of India)
Introduction: In a recent case, Kantilal Bhaguji Mohite v. Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax-Pune III [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. (s). 11203/2019 dated February 14, 2024], the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment clarifying the scope of writ jurisdiction concerning the waiver of the statutory pre-deposit condition for filing appeals. The Court’s decision, dated February 14, 2024, affirmed the stance that writ jurisdiction cannot override the mandatory pre-deposit requirement imposed by Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Supreme Court in above case dismissed the Petitioner’s Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) against the Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment, which dismissed the writ petition against the Tribunal order which denied the waiver of mandatory pre-deposit condition for filing a statutory appeal. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court found no merit in the Petitioner’s plea that this Court, in writ jurisdiction, can waive this condition or relax or dilute its rigors.
Prior to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the Petitioner had advanced an argument that the CESTAT is not empowered to dismiss the appeal without adjudication on merits simply because the condition imposed by Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (“Central Excise Act”) to obtain interim stay or relief against recovery is not complied with.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the Petitioner desired to have an adjudication on merits without complying with this condition, and once the Tribunal found that condition was not complied with, it was not open to adjudicating the matter on merits. The High Court also observed that writ jurisdiction is not meant to benefit parties like the Petitioner or to enable him to get over the statutory condition of pre-deposit for filing appeal imposed by Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act. The language of the Section clearly states that the Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal unless the pre-condition mandate is satisfied. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that they are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s decision in the Kantilal Bhaguji Mohite case establishes a clear precedent that writ jurisdiction does not have the authority to grant waivers or relax statutory pre-deposit conditions for filing appeals. This reaffirms the significance of following the legal procedures laid down by statutes and acts as a reminder that statutory requirements must be fulfilled before seeking judicial remedies. The judgment contributes to the overall legal clarity and ensures a consistent application of laws related to pre-deposit conditions in the realm of taxation.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
We have heard learned counsel Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi for petitioner and learned ASG Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee along with learned senior counsel Mr. Rupesh Kumar for the respondent.
We are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The special leave petition is, hence, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
***
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
