https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756596 Recovery proceedings arising from the impugned orders were kept in abeyance because the levy of GST on mining activity was already pending before the Supreme Court, preventing coercive enforcement until final clarity emerged. The petitioner was also allowed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy without insisting on pre-deposit, preserving the right of appeal while the substantive taxability issue remained undecided. The writ petitions were disposed of on this limited protective basis, without adjudicating the merits of the GST levy dispute. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Aug 2024 21:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756596 Recovery proceedings arising from the impugned orders were kept in abeyance because the levy of GST on mining activity was already pending before the Supreme Court, preventing coercive enforcement until final clarity emerged. The petitioner was also allowed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy without insisting on pre-deposit, preserving the right of appeal while the substantive taxability issue remained undecided. The writ petitions were disposed of on this limited protective basis, without adjudicating the merits of the GST levy dispute. Case-Laws GST Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756596