https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792670 A writ petition challenging a GST demand order was treated as maintainable because it was filed within the condonable appellate period, so the limitation objection was rejected despite the existence of an alternate remedy. The matter was then remitted for fresh consideration on protective terms: the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within thirty days and produce supporting records and evidence. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on compliance, and non-compliance would permit recovery as if the writ had been dismissed at the threshold. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jun 2026 08:25:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792670 A writ petition challenging a GST demand order was treated as maintainable because it was filed within the condonable appellate period, so the limitation objection was rejected despite the existence of an alternate remedy. The matter was then remitted for fresh consideration on protective terms: the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within thirty days and produce supporting records and evidence. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on compliance, and non-compliance would permit recovery as if the writ had been dismissed at the threshold. Case-Laws GST Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792670