The issue was whether a writ could bypass the statutory appeal against a GST order. The court held it could not, but allowed filing of appeal within four weeks without limitation objections.
The case addressed whether delayed appeals can be entertained through writ jurisdiction. The Court ruled that statutory timelines are mandatory and cannot be circumvented.
The issue was non-service of an income tax order and availability of remedy. The Court allowed withdrawal and granted liberty to appeal while directing supply of the order.
The Court addressed whether appeals could proceed despite low tax effect. It held that since Rule 8(3A) was already struck down and not in issue, appeals were not maintainable.
The court held that an appeal under Section 260A cannot be entertained when it merely seeks re-appreciation of evidence, upholding the addition confirmed by lower authorities.
The Court directed time-bound action for implementing an appellate order granting TDS relief. It held that refunds due after success in appeal must not be unnecessarily delayed.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition, noting that the appellate tribunal was accepting filings and the impugned order was appealable. It held that alternate remedies cannot be bypassed merely due to delay concerns.
The High Court granted bail in a ₹35 crore GST evasion case, noting the petitioner’s voluntary deposit of ₹1.25 crore and medical grounds, subject to strict conditions.
The High Court ruled that when the initial pre-deposit exceeds 20% of the revised tax demand, no additional payment can be insisted upon for filing appeal before GSTAT.
The High Court declined to entertain a writ challenging GST on mining royalty, holding that an effective appellate remedy was available. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal.
