https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435485 Where the appellate tribunal under the Bihar GST Act had not yet been constituted, the Court held that the assessee should not lose the statutory protection attached to the appellate remedy. The petitioner had already invoked the first appeal under Section 107 and claimed compliance with the deposit requirement for a further appeal under Section 112(8). In view of Section 112(9), which deems recovery of the balance demand stayed on payment of the prescribed amount, and the difficulty order recognising that limitation would run only after the Tribunal came into existence, the Court found a strong prima facie case and stayed recovery of the outstanding demand. en-us Wed, 15 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2025 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435485 Where the appellate tribunal under the Bihar GST Act had not yet been constituted, the Court held that the assessee should not lose the statutory protection attached to the appellate remedy. The petitioner had already invoked the first appeal under Section 107 and claimed compliance with the deposit requirement for a further appeal under Section 112(8). In view of Section 112(9), which deems recovery of the balance demand stayed on payment of the prescribed amount, and the difficulty order recognising that limitation would run only after the Tribunal came into existence, the Court found a strong prima facie case and stayed recovery of the outstanding demand. Case-Laws GST Wed, 15 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435485