https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773222 Where a GST demand was preceded by a show cause notice but the taxpayer filed no reply and did not participate in adjudication, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not exercised and the statutory appellate remedy was held to be the proper course. Despite expiry of the appellate limitation period, the Court granted limited liberty to file the appeal within thirty days with the requisite pre-deposit, directing that limitation should not bar filing. It was also clarified that such filing would not amount to an admission regarding proprietorship of M/s Netwest Traders, and the appellate authority would decide the dispute, including the alleged registration amendment, on merits. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:29:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773222 Where a GST demand was preceded by a show cause notice but the taxpayer filed no reply and did not participate in adjudication, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not exercised and the statutory appellate remedy was held to be the proper course. Despite expiry of the appellate limitation period, the Court granted limited liberty to file the appeal within thirty days with the requisite pre-deposit, directing that limitation should not bar filing. It was also clarified that such filing would not amount to an admission regarding proprietorship of M/s Netwest Traders, and the appellate authority would decide the dispute, including the alleged registration amendment, on merits. Case-Laws GST Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773222