https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784190 Where the statutory period to file an appeal under s.107 of the GST Acts, 2017 against the impugned demand order had expired and the assessee instead invoked writ jurisdiction, the HC held that, consistent with prior orders in similar circumstances, the matter could be remitted to balance equities between the assessee and the Revenue. Treating the lapse of the appellate remedy as not foreclosing supervisory relief, the HC directed reconsideration on merits subject to a pre-deposit condition calibrated to delay. The impugned demand was not sustained as final; the case was remitted for a fresh merits order upon deposit of 25% of the disputed tax in cash within 30 days, and the writ was disposed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:33:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784190 Where the statutory period to file an appeal under s.107 of the GST Acts, 2017 against the impugned demand order had expired and the assessee instead invoked writ jurisdiction, the HC held that, consistent with prior orders in similar circumstances, the matter could be remitted to balance equities between the assessee and the Revenue. Treating the lapse of the appellate remedy as not foreclosing supervisory relief, the HC directed reconsideration on merits subject to a pre-deposit condition calibrated to delay. The impugned demand was not sustained as final; the case was remitted for a fresh merits order upon deposit of 25% of the disputed tax in cash within 30 days, and the writ was disposed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784190