GST writ maintainability within condonable appeal period upheld, with remand subject to partial deposit and records production.

A writ petition challenging a GST demand order was treated as maintainable because it was filed within the condonable appellate period, so the limitation objection was rejected despite the existence of an alternate remedy. The matter was then remitted for fresh consideration on protective terms: the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within thirty days and produce supporting records and evidence. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on compliance, and non-compliance would permit recovery as if the writ had been dismissed at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition, filed within the condonable period under the GST appeal provision, could be entertained despite the alternate appellate remedy; (ii) whether the impugned order under the GST demand provision warranted remand for fresh consideration subject to payment of part of the disputed tax and production of records.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition, filed within the condonable period under the GST appeal provision, could be entertained despite the alternate appellate remedy.

Analysis: The impugned order was dated 08.12.2025 and the writ petition was filed on 02.04.2026, which was within the condonable period for an appeal. On that footing, the writ petition was treated as entertainable. The plea of limitation raised by the petitioner was held to be covered against it, and it was noted that the impugned order had been passed under the GST demand provision.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be maintainable and the limitation objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order under the GST demand provision warranted remand for fresh consideration subject to payment of part of the disputed tax and production of records.

Analysis: The petitioner expressed readiness to produce records and accepted a condition to secure the revenue. On that basis, the matter was sent back for fresh consideration with a direction to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within thirty days and to file supporting documents and evidence. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders, and failure to comply would permit recovery as if the writ petition had been dismissed in limine.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication subject to the specified deposit and compliance conditions.

Final Conclusion: The Court preserved the challenge only to the limited extent of remitting the matter for fresh adjudication, while sustaining the revenue's interest through a mandatory partial deposit and compliance with documentary requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order can be entertained within the condonable appellate period, but the matter may still be remitted for fresh decision subject to protective conditions securing the disputed tax.

---