https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343409 The High Court held that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory appeal remedy before the First Appellate Authority instead of directly approaching the Court. Despite the petitioner's payment of over 60% of the tax demand and arguments regarding delays, the Court granted liberty to file a first appeal within four weeks. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits without limitation issues. The respondents were instructed to lift the bank attachment order, allowing them to proceed against the petitioner based on the Appellate Authority's decision. en-us Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 May 2017 07:08:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343409 The High Court held that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory appeal remedy before the First Appellate Authority instead of directly approaching the Court. Despite the petitioner's payment of over 60% of the tax demand and arguments regarding delays, the Court granted liberty to file a first appeal within four weeks. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits without limitation issues. The respondents were instructed to lift the bank attachment order, allowing them to proceed against the petitioner based on the Appellate Authority's decision. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343409