https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784624 Where the assessee failed to respond to the SCN and the statutory appeal under s.107 of the GST enactments, 2017 was time-barred, the HC considered whether writ jurisdiction should nonetheless be exercised. Relying on prior orders in comparable situations, the HC held that the impugned assessment orders could be set aside and the matters remitted for fresh adjudication on protective terms, to balance revenue interests against denial of an effective appellate remedy. The HC directed the assessee to deposit 50% of the disputed tax (limited to mismatch in GSTR-3B vis-à-vis GSTR-2A and ineligible ITC) in cash from the electronic cash ledger within 30 days, and disposed of the writ petitions by quashing and remanding. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784624 Where the assessee failed to respond to the SCN and the statutory appeal under s.107 of the GST enactments, 2017 was time-barred, the HC considered whether writ jurisdiction should nonetheless be exercised. Relying on prior orders in comparable situations, the HC held that the impugned assessment orders could be set aside and the matters remitted for fresh adjudication on protective terms, to balance revenue interests against denial of an effective appellate remedy. The HC directed the assessee to deposit 50% of the disputed tax (limited to mismatch in GSTR-3B vis-à-vis GSTR-2A and ineligible ITC) in cash from the electronic cash ledger within 30 days, and disposed of the writ petitions by quashing and remanding. Case-Laws GST Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784624