Writ challenge to tax appeal limitation and validity of Rule 36(4) admitted for hearing despite appellate remedy.

A writ petition challenged dismissal of a statutory appeal as time-barred and also questioned the validity of Rule 36(4) of the CGST/AGST Rules, 2017, in the context of the appellate remedy under Section 112(2) of the CGST Act read with Rule 110 of the CGST Rules. The High Court noted the availability of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, but also recorded the petitioner's contention that the constitutional challenge to Rule 36(4) could not be effectively raised before the appellate authority. The Court found the matter required consideration, admitted the writ petition, dispensed with formal notice since the respondents were already represented, and listed the case for hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation and the validity of Rule 36(4) of the CGST/AGST Rules, 2017 should be entertained notwithstanding the appellate remedy under Section 112(2) of the CGST Act read with Rule 110 of the CGST Rules.

Analysis: The Court noted the availability of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the appellate order, but also noted the petitioner's stand that the challenge to the validity of Rule 36(4) could not be effectively raised before the appellate authority. The Court recorded that the matter required consideration.

Outcome: The writ petition was admitted, formal notice was dispensed with as the respondents were already represented, and the matter was listed for hearing.

---