https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795157 Erroneous classification of an interest demand as tax in Form GST DRC-07 may justify writ jurisdiction despite a statutory appellate remedy where it compels a pre-deposit not required under Section 112(8). The demand comprised input tax credit reversal, interest and penalty, with no disputed tax component. Although the original order was rectified to show the amount as interest, the appellate order remained unrectified because the permitted amendment period had expired. An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal would therefore require pre-deposit on an amount incorrectly recorded as tax, making the alternative remedy ineffective and prejudicial. Fresh appellate consideration was warranted. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:37:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795157 Erroneous classification of an interest demand as tax in Form GST DRC-07 may justify writ jurisdiction despite a statutory appellate remedy where it compels a pre-deposit not required under Section 112(8). The demand comprised input tax credit reversal, interest and penalty, with no disputed tax component. Although the original order was rectified to show the amount as interest, the appellate order remained unrectified because the permitted amendment period had expired. An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal would therefore require pre-deposit on an amount incorrectly recorded as tax, making the alternative remedy ineffective and prejudicial. Fresh appellate consideration was warranted. Case-Laws GST Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795157