Financial Incapacity to Pay Pre-deposit Does Not Justify Bypassing Statutory Alternate Remedies in Fiscal Matters.

The petitioner challenged an Order-In-Original dated 29.09.2025 issued by the CGST authorities.

The primary ground for challenge was "delayed adjudication," as the show-cause notice was issued on 29.09.2020, but the final order was passed five years later on 29.09.2025.

The petitioner also argued that the tax liability related to exempt government construction.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 instead of the statutory Appellate Authority, claiming a financial inability to meet the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for an appeal, supported by audited accounts.

The respondents argued that the writ should be dismissed due to the existence of an alternative, efficacious remedy.

1. Whether an Order-In-Original can be challenged directly under Article 226 solely on the ground of delayed adjudication when a statutory appeal remedy exists.

2. Whether the hardship of paying a mandatory pre-deposit for a statutory appeal renders the alternative remedy "inefficacious," justifies bypassing the statutory regime.

The court primarily applied the principle of "exhaustion of alternative remedy" as a self-imposed restriction on High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It relied on the Supreme Court's interim directions in Union of India vs. GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd. (SLP (C) No. 5392 of 2025), which advised deferring hearings on delayed adjudication until the higher court takes a final call.

The court applied the principle that the right to appeal is a statutory right, not an inherent one, and is subject to conditions like pre-deposit, as upheld in Oberoi Constructions Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 137 GSTR 601.

It distinguished J.M. Baxi & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs [(2001) 9 SCC 275] regarding extreme delays.

The court reasoned that since the Order-In-Original is appealable by statute, the petitioner cannot bypass this regime unless an extraordinary case is made out.

Regarding the issue of "delayed adjudication," the court noted that the Supreme Court is currently seized of the larger legal question in the GMR Airport Infrastructure case; however, this did not mandate the High Court to keep the writ pending indefinitely.

The court observed that an appeal is a "more comprehensive remedy" because it allows for the adjudication of factual disputes and various other grounds beyond just the delay.

Crucially, the court rejected the petitioner's plea that financial inability to pay the pre-deposit makes the remedy inefficacious, stating that Article 226 cannot be used to frustrate statutory fiscal requirements or the "statutory regime".

It held that the inability to pay a pre-deposit does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying the bypass of statutory procedures.

The petition was disposed of with the following directions: (i) the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal within four weeks; (ii) if filed within this period and after complying with pre-requisites, the Appellate Authority must decide the case on merits without regard to the limitation period; and (iii) all contentions, including the ground of delayed adjudication, remain open for the petitioner to raise before the Appellate Authority.