https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100130 The High Court dealt with GST recovery and appellate limitation issues arising from a rectified demand order. It held that an appeal dismissed only on delay was vitiated because the appellate authority had not examined whether time spent prosecuting a writ petition could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; the dismissal was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on that limited point, with merits and limitation left open. It also held that once the statutory appeal is filed and the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) is made, recovery of the balance demand remains stayed under Section 107(7), so the recovery order could not stand and was quashed. en-us Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:42 +0530 Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100130 The High Court dealt with GST recovery and appellate limitation issues arising from a rectified demand order. It held that an appeal dismissed only on delay was vitiated because the appellate authority had not examined whether time spent prosecuting a writ petition could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; the dismissal was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on that limited point, with merits and limitation left open. It also held that once the statutory appeal is filed and the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) is made, recovery of the balance demand remains stayed under Section 107(7), so the recovery order could not stand and was quashed. Highlights GST Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:42 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100130