High Court Directs Adjustment of Pre-Deposit, Dismisses Writ on Alternate Remedy

The petitioner instituted the writ petition challenging two orders dated 1 March 2024 and 26 March 2024. The order dated 1 March 2024 was withdrawn by the authorities, and an order dated 4 September 2024 recalling the 1 March 2024 order was produced on record; accordingly, the grievance regarding that order did not survive.

The petition, therefore, concentrated on the order dated 26 March 2024, which imposed a penalty of approximately Rs. 20 Lakhs. It was contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice because the petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notice was not considered. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an appeal would entail a statutory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty (in the range of about Rs. 1.5 Lakhs), which the petitioner may not be able to afford. The respondents submitted that principles of natural justice were complied with, the petitioner’s statement and the supplier’s statement were recorded and relied upon, and that an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal was available.

Issue Raised: Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition challenging the penalty order dated 26 March 2024 despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy, and whether alleged financial incapacity justified excusing the pre-deposit requirement.

High Court’s Decision: The Court declined to entertain the writ petition against the impugned order dated 26 March 2024, held that the issue of natural justice was to be examined by the Appellate Authority in the first instance, directed adjustment of the petitioner’s earlier deposit of Rs. 3 Lakhs towards the pre-deposit requirement (thereby satisfying the pre-deposit).

Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the petition insofar as it challenged the order dated 26 March 2024 but granted the petitioner liberty to file the statutory appeal within six weeks. If the appeal is instituted within six weeks, the Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal on merits without advertence to the issue of limitation. All contentions were kept open. The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below