https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763207 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. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jul 2025 13:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763207 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. Case-Laws GST Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763207