Writ jurisdiction cannot grant a waiver of statutory pre-deposit condition for filing appeal

Last updated: 29 February 2024
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court has ruled that a statutory pre-deposit condition for filing an appeal cannot be waived, even through writ jurisdiction. The case involved a petitioner who sought to appeal a tribunal order without meeting the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The Bombay High Court found no merit in the argument that writ powers could override this statutory condition, and the Supreme Court agreed, dismissing the special leave petition.

Court :
Supreme Court of India

Brief :
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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] 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.

Citation :
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. (s). 11203/2019 dated February 14, 2024

Daily Limit Reached

You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements

Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access

Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
  • No Ads
  • WhatsApp Broadcasts
  • Daily E-Newsletter
  • Unlimited Judgements Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
View all CCI PRO benfits

Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.

 

Bimal Jain
Published in Excise
Views : 280
Share Report Abuse
Comments


Recent Judgments :

  1. ITAT Jodhpur: AO Allows ₹2.61 Crore Deduction under Sections 54EC and 54F; Assessee's Appeal Dismissed as Infructuous
  2. CESTAT Revokes Suspension of Customs Broker Licence for Non-Compliance with Mandatory 15-Day Hearing Requirement
  3. ITAT Jodhpur: Penny Stock LTCG Cannot Be Treated as Bogus Merely on General Investigation Report
  4. CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside ₹22.84 Crore Service Tax Demand Against HCL Infosystems
  5. CESTAT Delhi Holds LED Modules Classifiable Under CTH 8539; Rejects Department's Classification Under CTH 9405
  6. Incremental GST burden on pre-GST works contracts is recoverable only from the contracting employer and not from the State or tax authorities
  7. Time Spent in Pursuing Rectification Application under Section 161 of the CGST Act Excludible While Computing Limitation for Filing Appeal under Section 107
  8. Cancellation of GST registration based on defective verification reports fails the statutory test of 'reasons to believe’
  9. Limitation for filing GST appeal runs from the date of actual communication of the order as declared by the dealer unless rebutted by the Revenue through cogent material
  10. Supreme Court: Cruise Operators Eligible for Section 44B Presumptive Taxation; Hospitality Services Do Not Change Nature of ‘Carriage’

View More Judgments »


Trending Online Classes

view all classess

CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Pro Member vinayvinayPro Member Chnmaya parhiChnmaya parhiPro Member Sabareesan S VenkateshSabareesan S VenkateshPro Member Lalan Kumar JhaLalan Kumar JhaPro Member ACCFIN SOLUTIONSACCFIN SOLUTIONS
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals

Browse by Category