https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783586 Non-constitution and non-functioning of the statutory GST Appellate Tribunal rendered the alternative appellate remedy illusory, and the State could not initiate coercive recovery without making the legislatively conferred right of second appeal effectively available. Permitting recovery in such circumstances was held contrary to the statutory scheme and violative of constitutional fairness. Since the petitioner had substantially complied with the pre-deposit requirement under s.112(8) of the U.P. GST Act, the HC ordered that, subject to deposit of the balance pre-deposit by 30.06.2026 or the date of filing the appeal (whichever earlier), no further recovery pursuant to the impugned adjudication order would be made and bank garnishee proceedings would remain stayed. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783586 Non-constitution and non-functioning of the statutory GST Appellate Tribunal rendered the alternative appellate remedy illusory, and the State could not initiate coercive recovery without making the legislatively conferred right of second appeal effectively available. Permitting recovery in such circumstances was held contrary to the statutory scheme and violative of constitutional fairness. Since the petitioner had substantially complied with the pre-deposit requirement under s.112(8) of the U.P. GST Act, the HC ordered that, subject to deposit of the balance pre-deposit by 30.06.2026 or the date of filing the appeal (whichever earlier), no further recovery pursuant to the impugned adjudication order would be made and bank garnishee proceedings would remain stayed. Case-Laws GST Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783586