https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786191 High Court applied the principle that limitation is abeyant during bona fide pursuit of rectification under the UPGST Act, treating time spent on a Section 161 rectification application as excluded from limitation; consequently an appeal filed after rectification rejection was held maintainable despite delay, relying on a Division Bench precedent. The Court found a separate appeal timely where the petitioner withdrew a writ with liberty to appeal and held the petitioner entitled to the benefit of limitation abeyance for pursuing remedy before a wrong forum. Because interim deposits (10% and 25% respectively) were made, the appellate authority must decide the appeals on merits within two months. en-us Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Feb 2026 07:19:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786191 High Court applied the principle that limitation is abeyant during bona fide pursuit of rectification under the UPGST Act, treating time spent on a Section 161 rectification application as excluded from limitation; consequently an appeal filed after rectification rejection was held maintainable despite delay, relying on a Division Bench precedent. The Court found a separate appeal timely where the petitioner withdrew a writ with liberty to appeal and held the petitioner entitled to the benefit of limitation abeyance for pursuing remedy before a wrong forum. Because interim deposits (10% and 25% respectively) were made, the appellate authority must decide the appeals on merits within two months. Case-Laws GST Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786191